Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Coal Miners

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) if he is aware of the hardship caused to men injured in the coal mines who have their sickness benefit stopped on the grounds that they are fit for light work, yet are living in an area where practically no light work is available; and what steps he is taking to relieve this hardship;
(2) if he is aware that injured coal miners are being forced to sign on at employment exchanges for unemployment benefit on the grounds that they have recovered sufficiently to be fit for light work, although no work is available for them; if he is further aware that when they exhaust their insurance rights to unemployment benefit, they are forced on to National Assistance when their income from workmen's compensation or disablement benefit is taken into account, thus

causing a reduction in their weekly income; and what steps he is taking to remedy these anomalies.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I have no reason to believe that in general the provisions governing this matter are working other than well, or that they are not sensibly and humanely administered. The hon. Lady will be aware that unemployment benefit is payable for periods ranging up to 19 months. If, however, the hon. Lady has any particular case in mind and will let me know, I will be happy to look into it.

Miss Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if one loses a leg or an arm or an eye, or has serious pneumoconiosis, one suffers from it for the rest of one's life? Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me how he would feel if he had started working in a coal pit at the age of 15 and, at the age of 40, after twenty-five years, found himself disabled for life and unable to work or earn as formerly; and if, after nineteen months at the very most, his unemployment plus disablement pension benefits were cut off and he were certified as fit for light work although no light work was available? How would he feel if he were drawing National Assistance benefit from which the ordinary compensation rates had been subtracted?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Obviously the kind of case to which the hon. Lady refers excites the sympathy of all of us, but it is a little difficult to deal with a somewhat complex issue of this kind on


the basis—and I say this in no offensive sense—of a hypothetical example of that kind. The hon. Lady is aware that there is the fall-back on an employability supplement under the Industrial Injuries Act. I hope that later this afternoon the House will be engaged in raising the level of that supplement.

Miss Lee: Because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the question at the earliest possible moment. There is nothing about losing a leg or an arm which makes a man fit for normal work.

Benefits (Late Claims)

Mr. J. Harrison: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many insured persons have forfeited benefits owing to their claims being made too late.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are no general statistics of such cases, but such information as is available indicates that they are relatively very few.

National Insurance (Publicity)

Mr. J. Harrison: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many different forms of advice and instructions his Department has issued explaining the present insurance scheme.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Information of this kind is conveyed on pension books, orders and application forms, as well as on a large number of explanatory leaflets, and notices in my local offices and post offices. I am much indebted to the Press and Radio for their constant help in the matter.

Mr. J. Harrison: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will publish a comprehensive booklet giving the time, place and other conditions necessary for a claim to be made for National Insurance benefits.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This information is contained in a publication called "Everybody's Guide to National Insurance." I propose to publish a new edition bringing the position up to date after the legislation now before Parliament has become law.

Mr. Harrison: The Minister is aware, I am sure, that when there is any large-scale reorganisation within areas of

administration, unless complete publicity is given to these alterations they lead to a considerable amount of confusion among the general public who have to make applications for benefit. Is he aware that I have been very pleased to hear of some of the steps he proposes to take about future advertising?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I agree with him that it is very important that as much information as possible about this inevitably rather complex system is given to those concerned, which means, virtually, the whole of our population.

Older Persons

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he has yet reached a decision on the question of those people who continue to work after normal retiring age and who fail by a narrow margin to obtain their full increments.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Although I understand and sympathise with the intention behind the hon. Lady's Question, I have no statement to make on this subject at present.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that some months ago he gave a promise to the House that he would consider this matter? Surely during that time he ought to have considered it and to have reached a decision. Is he aware that many old people, seventy years of age, who have worked since they were fourteen, are now finding, through no fault of their own, that after they have paid five years' extra contributions they are not getting the retirement pension which they expected to get?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is no reason for anybody to expect to get a bigger retirement pension than that to which he is entitled, since the conditions are very widely known. As I said in the main answer, I have some sympathy with what, I think, is the hon. Lady's point about the length of period required in respect of each increment, but she appreciates that this is, perhaps in a small measure, part of the wider problem of the provision for old age to which study is being given.

National Assistance, Wales

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of people in receipt of National Assistance in Wales during November, 1957; and the comparative number for 1956, 1955, and 1950, respectively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The National Assistance Board informs me that 129,000 weekly assistance grants were being paid in Wales at 29th October, 1957, the latest date for which information is available, and that the comparable figures for 1956, 1955 and 1950 were 127,000 125,000 and 110,000, respectively.

Mr. Thomas: Is not the Minister disturbed by this steady increase—if I heard aright—in the number in receipt of National Assistance in Wales?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The impression of a steady increase is, I think, occasioned by the hon. Gentleman's selectivity in the choice of dates. If he looks at 1952, 1953 and 1954, he will see that the figures were then higher than the latest, which I have just given.

Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. Friend tell us the proportion of people on assistance in relation to pensioners, for example? Is there any marked difference between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like notice of that.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of people in Cardiff who have been granted extra National Assistance to meet increased rent charges; and what is the total amount of money involved each week.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Up to 2nd November, 1957, the National Assistance Board's offices in Cardiff, which serve an area extending beyond the city, had increased about 1,600 weekly assistance grants to provide for rent increases under the Rent Act. The increased assistance averaged about 5s. 7d, a week, but as some of the recipients of such grants will have ceased to require assistance since the increases were granted, the figure asked for in The latter part of the Question is not known.

Mr. Thomas: As I am rather weak in arithmetic, I have found the Minister's Answer rather difficult to follow. Am I right in assuming that, taking out those who have fallen out in the meantime, about £250 a week subsidy to the landlords of Cardiff is being undertaken by the Assistance Board?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Without venturing to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's mathematics, I would put this to him, if I may: that if it is necessary to help a poor person who is unable to pay the full rent of his house, it is, on the whole, fairer for that to be done by the community as a whole, through the National Assistance Board, than on an individual basis by his landlord.

Retirement Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what Christmas bonus he proposes to grant to old-age pensioners in view of the fact that the proposed increase in the basic allowance will not be paid until the new year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I assume the hon. Gentleman has retirement pensioners in mind, and in that connection I share the view of my predecessors that the payments which the hon. Gentleman suggests would not he appropriate to a compulsory scheme of contributory insurance.

Mr. Thomas: But is the Minister aware that he would have the support of the entire community, I am quite confident, if, in view of the accepted need of the old folk, which the House acknowledges and which the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to put right in January, some such gift could be made? In those circumstances, could not he reconsider this question?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I believe that this matter of a Christmas bonus has been raised every year, certainly, for the last six or seven years, but it has. I think, generally been thought that an act of that sort—of a charitable kind, and a very admirable thing for voluntary bodies to undertake—is not an appropriate use of the funds of a contributory pension scheme, the benefits of which are available without any regard to the needs of the recipient.

Widows

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will make an investigation into the economic position of war widows whose husbands were in receipt of war pensions of 80 per cent. or more at the time of death; and if he will cause research to be undertaken in order to ascertain what percentage of such war widows are in receipt of a war widow's pension.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While I am concerned to follow closely the position of war widows generally, I know of no reason for a special investigation into the category of widow to whom the hon. Member refers, since the degree of disability of her late husband can have little relevance to her present economic position. In any event, as the hon. Member will be aware, the position of all qualified war widows will be substantially improved at the end of January as the result of the changes which I announced on 6th November.

Mr. Simmons: Surely the Minister knows what I am getting at. Is he not aware that during the lives of these badly-disabled war pensioners their wives have had a very rough time? I know that these war pensioners are apt to be a bit cantankerous at times, and their wives have to bear the brunt of it. This question of the admissibility of those wives to a war widow's pension should be looked at when the men die, because there is no doubt that while medically the Department can get away with it, morally it cannot?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Morally, I think that everything depends, from the war pension point of view, on whether or not it is possible to show that the man's death was caused by his pensioned disability. Where there is a doubt the benefit of it is given, but despite the hon. Gentleman's great experience of war pension administration, I believe that it would be quite wrong, and it would undermine the preference and priority given by all Governments to war pensioners, if one were to seek to extend the war widow's pension provisions to cover widows, who have become widows as a result of the ordinary chances of life and not as a result of their husband's war injury.

Mr. Simmons: Would the Minister consider the position of the man who, having lost a limb, cannot have any more surgical treatment but who, because of his loss, has a low expectancy of life? There is a case, in circumstances of that kind, for the widow to have the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Where it can be shown in a particular case that the man's death was hastened by his war disability that is done, but, in general, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the medical proposition that he has stated is contrary to the expressed views of the Rock-Carling Committee.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if the 90,000 widows now in receipt of 10s. pension will be required to pay the increased stamp contribution under the new Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir, on the same basis and subject to the same qualifications as everybody else.

Mrs. Mann: But is it not a different qualification in respect of these widows? They do not get any increase at all, they are still to be kept on 10s., but they are asked to pay 2s. extra to increase the pensions of other widows who are already getting the full pension.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. If these ladies are contributing and their contribution is increased, the various benefits under the National Insurance Scheme in respect of which the contributions are paid are, at the same time, being increased. I do not want to debate the whole question of the 10s. widow at Question Time, but the hon. Lady will remember that the great majority of these ladies are getting 10s. whereas their opposite numbers under the National Insurance Scheme get no pension at all.

Earnings

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will remove the earning limit enforced upon old-age pensioners; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will take immediate steps to abolish the rule which limits the earning power of old-age pensioners.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) on 11th November.

Mr. Owen: Is the Minister aware that if quite recently a civil servant retired and then more recently took up another appointment, his pension is not affected by his new employment? Until such times as we can remove poverty in old age, is it not desirable that what applies to the civil servant should also apply to the other pensioners within the community?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall that from the beginning of this scheme the view of Lord Beveridge was accepted, which was that if an adequate pension were to be provided at the age of 65 for men and 60 for women a retirement condition was essential to it if the burden were to be carried. That view has been held by successive Governments since the Scheme began.

Non-Contributory Old-Age Pensioners

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many people are now in receipt of non-contributory old-age pensions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: At 29th October, 1957, about 236,000.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what will be the annual cost of paying non-contributory old-age pensions, including the proposed additional 2s. 4d. a week; and by what amount he estimates that this would be increased if the pension were to be paid as of right and without a test of means.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The National Assistance Board informs me that non-contributory old-age pensions, including the proposed addition of 2s. 4d., are expected to cost rather less than £14 million in the next financial year. No reliable estimate can be made of what the cost would be if the statutory condition relating to means were removed; if all persons who might then become eligible applied for the non-contributory pension, the extra initial cost to the Exchequer, after allowing for savings in national

assistance, would probably amount to between £30 million and £40 million a year.

Tenants, Southampton (Rent Allowances)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of tenant occupiers in Southampton who have received increased rent allowances since the Rent Act became law; and how many of these cases were referred to him because the rent increase was above twice the gross rateable value.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Up to 2nd November, 1957, the National Assistance Board's offices in Southampton, which serve an area extending beyond the city, had increased about 900 weekly assistance grants to provide for rent increases under the Rent Act. There is no reason why any case such as is suggested in the latter part of the Question should be referred to me, but in any event the National Assistance Board informs me that it is not aware of any case where the rent increase for which the Board is providing exceeds the increase permitted under the Act.

Dr. King: While thanking the Minister for what he and his local officers are doing to alleviate some of the worse evils of the Rent Act, may I ask him to confirm that local officers are entitled to meet even unreasonable increases in rent by profiteering landlords in decontrolled houses? Will he protect his Department by persuading the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government to put a ceiling to the rent increases that can be made?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the last part of the supplementary arises out of the original Question. As to the earlier part of the supplementary, I made a considered statement on the policy of the National Assistance Board in this House on 1st August, to which I prefer not to add.

Pneumoconiosis

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether it is now accepted that prolonged inhalation of noxious dusts can cause injury to lungs and bronchial tubes without any changes shown on X-ray; and whether he


will instruct the pneumoconiosis panels to examine every worker clinically as well as radiologically when a claim is made.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As a general proposition, I have no reason to disagree with the first part of the hon. Member's Question, though its application is limited to certain classes of case. As regards the second part, I am satisfied that in the case of pneumoconiosis there is proper opportunity for clinical examination whenever it is needed.

Dr. Stross: While thanking the Minister for the first part of his answer, may I take it that he agrees that every case about which there is any doubt at all should appeal if the person concerned is rejected only on X-ray examination?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is certainly not for me to advise appeals, whether on that basis or any other, but I think, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman is in any event anticipating his next Question.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many workers were examined for pneumoconiosis in England and Wales by the pneumoconiosis panels in the last year for which figures are available; of these, how many claims were rejected on X-ray examination alone without clinical assessment; and how many of these latter cases were assessed as suffering from pulmonary disability after they appealed and were clinically examined.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the year ending 30th June, 1957, 13,597 persons were examined by the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panels in England and Wales following claims for benefit under the Industrial Injuries Acts. Of these, 6,512 were rejected on X-ray examination. There were 372 appeals against disallowance on X-ray examination and, after clinical examination, 39 of these appellants were found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis.

Dr. Stross: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that his answer gives point to these two Questions, namely, that if it is at all possible, and as soon as possible, every case should be examined clinically and not only radiologically? Does he not further agree that, however valuable radiological examination may prove to be—and, of

course, it is valuable—it does not entirely replace clinical assessment?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should not like to generalise on as complex an issue as this. As the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, the advance in X-ray examination in these cases in recent years, particularly at the hospital at Llandough, has been quite remarkable. I really would not like to seek to lay down any general proposition. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's earlier question, it is the fact that in cases of appeal there is a clinical examination in addition to the X-ray examination.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these 6,000 cases were mine workers?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot say without notice. It would certainly be the large majority, but I will get the figure if the right hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling that the criterion used in assessing and judging these cases ought to be reviewed in the light of experience gained in past years and, in particular, in the light of experience gained in the hospital to which he has referred?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There has been great progress in scientific examination not only into the diagnosis but, I am glad to say, in the treatment of this appalling complaint. I am not aware, although a number of questions have been raised, that the main principles of the Industrial Injuries Act have been shown to be inappropriate.

Miss Lee: Is the Minister aware that a higher percentage of miners who are certified to be suffering from pneumoconiosis are also certified as fit for light work? Will he therefore look carefully at Questions Nos. 1 and 2 which I asked relating to this matter, because a problem in many of our mining areas is that although it would be good for men to have light jobs—indeed, they want light jobs—and although they are certified fit for such light work, there is no such work available?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I acknowledge that that is a problem and has been so for many years.

Dr. Stross: As the right hon. Gentleman's answers have been only partially satisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Cross-Channel Cable

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the Paymaster-General what agreement has been come to with regard to linking the electricity systems of Great Britain and France by means of a cross-Channel cable; when work is likely to start; and when it is likely to be completed.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The Central Electricity Authority and Electricité de France have agreed to proceed with a scheme for linking the electricity systems of Great Britain and France. My noble Friend has given his approval in principle to the Central Electricity Authority, but work cannot start until the Authority has completed its detailed planning and secured the necessary statutory consents. It is hoped that the project will be completed by the winter of 1960–61.

Sir J. Hutchison: Can my right hon. Friend say what the approximate total cost will be; who pays this total cost; is it shared or paid by this country; who will benefit, and in what way?

Mr. Maudling: The total cost will be about £4 million of which we shall pay half and the French will pay half, and the total annual savings to the two countries should be about £300,000.

Electricity Supply Industry (Report)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General what steps are being taken to carry out the recommendations of the Herbert Committee for reorganisation of power station construction arrangements and the electrical generation system of the country under the new Generating Board.

Mr. Maudling: My noble Friend understands that the Generating Board has not yet completed its consideration of this problem of organisation. It will announce its decision as soon as it is in a position to do so.

Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman press his noble Friend in his turn to press upon those responsible the need for the fullest consultation with the trade unions and staff associations before these changes are carried through?

Mr. Maudling: I am quite certain that the Generating Board is well aware of that important matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Industrial Fuel Efficiency

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Paymaster General, whether his attention has been called to the doubts expressed by the Chairman of the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service lest the campaign for fuel saving in industry should suffer for lack of finance; and what steps he proposes to meet this situation.

Mr. Maudling: I sympathise with the anxiety of the Chairman of N.I.F.E.S. to promote fuel efficiency by all possible means. I fear, however, that it is impossible, in present circumstances, to contemplate further special measures to help industry to finance the installation of more efficient plant.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the strong feeling that we are not pressing on sufficiently vigorously in this matter of fuel economy? Will not he think the matter over again?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that there is a great deal still to be done, but the Government are helping by the loan scheme and investment allowances. The main requirement is for industry as a whole to recognise the great benefits which will flow to it from the installation of modern, efficient fuel utilisation plant.

Scientists and Research

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Paymaster General how many scientists are now employed in his Department; and what is his present expenditure on scientific research.

Mr. Maudling: One hundred and sixty-two; expenditure in the current financial year is estimated to be about £1,045,000.

Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has enough scientists to carry out the atomic energy plan?

Mr. Maudling: The responsibility in this country for atomic energy research rests with the Atomic Energy Authority, which is a quite different matter.

Steel Production

Mr. Cronin: asked the Paymaster-General to give an approximate estimate as to the amount in ingot tons per annum by which the production of steel in the United Kingdom is now running below the maximum attainable with present productive resources.

Mr. Maudling: The Iron and Steel Board estimates that the output of crude steel in October was roughly 3½ per cent. below the actual maximum atainable in present circumstances. In annual terms, this represents about 850,000 ingot tons.

Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind that we are at present importing over 1 million ingot tons per annum, largely from non-sterling sources, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that waste of productive capacity does not increase?

Mr. Maudling: The interesting thing is that, while home deliveries were below the 1956 level so far in this year, the industry has increased its exports by more than the decline in home deliveries, and imports, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, have been cut by half.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Distribution (Bradford Experiment)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Paymaster-General if he has now had an opportunity to consider the success of the Bradford experiment in coal distribution; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: The delegation of powers to the Bradford City Council in 1955 made it possible to intensify the checks on coal prices in the Bradford area and an increased number of prosecutions under the Coal Control Orders resulted. Where there are circumstances similar to those existing at Bradford in 1955 my noble Friend is prepared to grant the local authority concerned similar

powers, but as these necessarily include authority to enter business premises he will do so only if exceptional need is demonstrated.

Mrs. Mann: Is not the Paymaster-General aware that that is a similar reply to the one that I got three months ago? The reply that I got last week was that the Minister was going to inquire into the Bradford system. Does he know that the Minister has inquired into the Bradford system, that he sent officials months ago to look at the Bradford system and that the officials reported that it was a much better method of inspection than the Minister's own? According to the journal of the inspectors' institute, up and down the country as much as 40s. a ton is overcharged simply by faking the grade?

Mr. Maudling: I did say what had been the result of our examination of the Bradford system. However, one must have regard to the other principle, which is that one should not extend the use of the emergency powers beyond what is really necessary.

Mrs. Mann: Owing to the ignorant nature of that reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think I heard all the hon. Lady's epithets, but I would advise her, if she gives notice to raise a matter on the Adjournment, that it is better to use the proper formula.

Mrs. Mann: It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, for a back bencher to deal with Ministers who change so frequently. One seems to be learning and feeling his way by groping around, giving a different reply from that given by his predecessor.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady may raise all these matters on the Adjournment of which she has given notice, but I am afraid they are not a point of order or matters in which I can intervene.

Household Stocks (Scotland)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Paymaster-General the present stocks of household coal in Scotland compared with the figure a year ago.

Mr. Maudling: 227,100 tons at 2nd November, 1957, compared with 251,900 tons at the corresponding date last year.

Allocation Scheme

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Paymaster-General if he will abolish coal rationing and thereby save the public trouble and the taxpayer money.

Mr. Maudling: Although my noble Friend is anxious to abolish coal restrictions, this could at present be achieved only by continuing heavy coal imports which, in present financial circumstances, it must be our aim to reduce.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again? If there is enough to go round as things are now, how can he say what he is saying? Further, how far are the fuel overseers or fuel inspectors in the towns of England fully employed?

Mr. Maudling: I can assure my hon. Friend that no one is more anxious than my noble Friend to get rid of coal rationing as soon as possible; but the fact is that coal of the sizes necessary for domestic household consumption is not available in the quantity needed. Therefore, it is quite impossible to abolish rationing without having greater imports of large coal.

Imports and Exports

Mr. Lipton: asked the Paymaster-General what is the current rate of coal imports from the United States of America and coal exports to Europe; and what are the respective prices per ton.

Mr. Maudling: In September, which is the latest month for which the Trade and Navigation Accounts are available, 95,000 tons of large coal were imported from America at a landed cost of about £8 8s. a ton and approximately 450,000 tons, mainly of the smaller sizes, were exported to Europe at an average f.o.b. value of £5 15s. per ton.

Mr. Lipton: But does the right hon. Gentleman not think that that is a ridiculous state of affairs, and will he not agree that it would be possible for him to end rationing and save dollars at one and the same time by appealing to the patriotism of the landlords who are now getting more rent to persuade them to put in modern grates in which small coal and processed fuel could be burned?

Mr. Maudling: It is ridiculous only if one fails to appreciate the difference between small coal and large coal or the capital cost of installing grates on the scale required.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not the fact, and will not my right hon. Friend recall, that successive Ministers of Fuel and Power and successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, from both sides of the House, have done absolutely nothing to encourage householders to install the necessary appliances to burn smaller coal? Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that, so long as he continues to bury his head in the sand like an ostrich and Jo nothing, householders will not take steps of that kind unless encouraged to do so by the Government? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept the premises on which my hon. Friend's question is based. In any case, it surely should not need very much encouragement for householders to install that kind of appliance which, in fact, brings them greater economy in the use of the coal they have to buy.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Subsidies (Payment)

Sir. J. Duncan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that vouchers in payment of agricultural subsidies require the recipient to endorse his name over a 2d. stamp before payment is made, and that this is no longer necessary in view of the Cheques Act; and what action he proposes to take to bring this practice into accord with the law.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Gaither): Most of the payments of agricultural subsidies are made by payable order drawn on H.M. Paymaster-General, and the provision of the Cheques Act, 1957, does not apply to these payable orders. It is still necessary for the recipient of a payable order to give a receipt over a 2d. stamp.

Sir J. Duncan: My hon. Friend said that most of the subsidies are paid in that way. Will he say which subsidies are and which are not?

Mr. Godber: I think that this covers practically all the subsidies. There are certain local payments which are made by cheque.

Mr. J. M. Davidson (Glamorganshire)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now publish the report made to him by the Cardiff City Constabulary based on their examination of certain documents alleged to bear the signature of Mr. J. M. Davidson, High Trees, Sulley, Glamorganshire.

Mr. Godber: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is advised that reports made by the police in connection with criminal investigations should be treated as confidential.

Mr. Gower: Is it not the fact that the report from the Cardiff City Forensic Laboratory to the Cardiff City Police indicates that certain signatures which have been attributed to my constituent are, in fact, open to the gravest suspicion, and does my hon. Friend not consider that the withholding of evidence of this kind will only encourage public suspicion and anxiety?

Mr. Godber: I think that we shall have an opportunity of debating this at greater length later this week, but may I make clear, in view of certain statements which have appeared in the Press in Wales on this matter, that some of the comments referred to signatures apparently relating to land sales which are nothing of the sort. These signatures relate to some ploughing and cultivations carried out by the Glamorgan Agricultural Executive Committee, for which Mr. Davidson has never paid.

Mr. G. Thomas: Will the Minister now give further consideration to this, in view of the fact that Mr. Davidson has made certain charges which the police have investigated? The report is now in the Minister's hands. Does he not believe that any little farmer in the country has a right to know whether the police have found justified his charge or not, expecially since the charge is against the Department of which the Minister is a head?

Mr. Godber: This relates to police reports, and I am told that it is quite improper for us to disclose them. But,

as I have said, we shall have the opportunity to discuss this at greater length later this week.

Bacon Prices

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that, although since 28th September wholesale prices for best English bacon have dropped by 10 per cent., there has been no fall in retail prices other than a reduction of 2d. per lb. in the price of prime back bacon; and if he will take steps, by reintroducing price control or otherwise, to ensure that lower pig prices to farmers are reflected by lower bacon prices in the shops.

Mr. Godber: According to my right hon. Friend's information, price reductions have by no means been confined to prime back bacon nor limited to 2d. a lb. though, of course, the position varies considerably from shop to shop. The answer to the second part of the question is. "No, Sir."

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that the reduction in price quoted in the Question is the only one quoted, since 28th September, in The Grocer, and they are official prices? Is he further aware that, as a result of the Government's support price policy, the taxpayers are paying heavily, farmers are receiving low prices, and the housewife is paying high prices? What does the Minister propose to do when there is a plentiful supply to bring down the prices in the shops?

Mr. Godber: I cannot accept that this reduction is representative. The information I have shows very much more substantial falls in a large number of retail shops, and, indeed, that is borne out by the information which my own wife gave me over the weekend.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman favour hon. Members by letting them have the prices he refers to? Secondly, is there no point between a low wholesale price and a high retail price when his right hon. Friend will think it his duty to interfere on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is concerned with inflation?

Mr. Godber: I certainly do not think that it would help if we were to interfere and start to control prices. I do not


believe that that has in the past had a beneficial effect, and I do not think that housewives would welcome it.

Irish Cattle (Tuberculin Testing)

Mr. Kimball: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what figures he has to show the percentage of imported Irish cattle which react to the tuberculin test when tested in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Godber: Of the Irish cattle entering tuberculosis attested areas in Great Britain during 1956, 2·6 per cent. reacted to the tuberculin test here. The corresponding figure for the first nine months of this year is 2·5. No statistics are available of the incidence of reactors among other Irish cattle imported into this country.

Mr. Kimball: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is the rather dubious efficiency of the Irish Free State tuberculin testing arrangements which accounts for a very marked reluctance among farmers dealing in Irish stores or fattening Irish stores to make their own farms in this country fully attested?

Mr. Godber: I would not altogether agree on that. I should be quite willing to look at it again, but my own information is that our farmers are taking them fairly readily; and the figures I have quoted show that the percentage is indeed very small.

Mr. Kimball: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present standard of tuberculosis testing carried on by the Republic of Ireland on store cattle for export to the United Kingdom; or what representations he proposes to make.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is advised that the standard of tuberculin testing in the Irish Republic is effectively the same as in this country. His senior veterinary officers keep in close touch in this matter with the authorities in the Republic.

Cartridge Rebate Scheme

Mr. Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food whether he will now increase the maximum rebate under the Cartridge Rebate Scheme from 24s. per 100 in view

of the fact that the cheapest cartridge now costs £2 15s. 9d. per 100.

Mr. Godber: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend would not feel justified in increasing this rebate.

Mr. Irvine: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the form on which application is made for rebate it is stated that the payment is made as to 50 per cent. subject to a maximum of 24s.? In these circumstances, and in view of the Answer which my hon. Friend has just given, would he not consider amending the form?

Mr. Godber: I shall be happy to look into that. I agree with my hon. Friend that it might be illogical to say that there is a rebate of 50 per cent. when, in fact, we are giving not quite 50 per cent.; but I do not think it would be right to increase the rebate.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will not the hon. Gentleman consider withdrawing this concession altogether? Why should the taxpayer pay for people's sport?

Mr. Godber: I could not agree with the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. In the main, this scheme serves a very useful purpose. Wood pigeons are a very great menace and many people who shoot these birds would not do so if they did not have the advantage of the rebate.

Watercourses (Responsibility)

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) in view of the fact that doubt exists whether the Bottle Brook, which has been responsible for considerable flooding in Little Eaton, Derbyshire, is a lesser watercourse and as such not part of the main river of the Trent River Board, if he will bring to a speedy conclusion his present consultations with the various associations concerned with a view to assigning responsibility.
(2) if he will introduce legislation with a view to establishing clearly the responsibility of public authorities for the cleaning and maintenance of lesser watercourses which are not part of the main river of a river board.

Mr. Godber: While realising the difficulties in cases such as that referred to by the hon. Member, I am afraid I have


nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) on I 11th November.

Mr. Champion: Is the Minister not aware that the Heneage Report has been in the hands of his Department since November, 1950, that the Minister himself announced consultations with the appropriate association in February of this year, and that this delay is causing considerable difficulty everywhere? Will not the Minister conclude these negotiations and himself take a decision?

Mr. Godber: I have a good deal of sympathy with the point put forward by the hon. Member. As I am sure he is aware, however, it is easy enough to initiate discussions but not quite so easy to bring them to a conclusion.

Potatoes

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his estimate of the total tonnage of potatoes from the 1957 crop.

Mr. Godber: The best estimate that can be made at present of the total quantity of potatoes grown in the United Kingdom on holdings of more than an acre is approximately 5,700,000 tons.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that in 1955 the crop was just over 6¼ million tons? The figure that he has now given is distinctly less, which is not surprising since there were 64,000 fewer acres under potatoes; and in 1955 there was a serious potato shortage. What steps is his right hon. Friend taking to ensure that even greater disaster and even higher prices do not come this year? It is very urgent.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is keeping this matter under the closest review. He is aware of the points which have been raised and although the price position has not reached such a state that he would wish to take action at the moment, that does not rule out that he might wish to do so at some future time.

Mr. Wiley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his right hon. Friend gave an undertaking to review the means of implementing the guarantee for potatoes. What progress has been made in devising a new price support system for potatoes?

Mr. Godber: That goes much further than the Question on the Paper.

Sir J. Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is bound to be a shortage? Would it not be better to announce now that import licences will be given when a certain price level for ware potatoes is reached, so that importers can look for the ware potatoes in Europe and other countries in time to avoid the awful muddle which took place a couple of years ago?

Mr. Godber: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend concerning the need to look at this matter. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is at present looking at it, but I am not in a position to make any statement yet.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that there is another Question on this potato business later.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to avoid a potato famine this winter.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend and his colleagues are at present considering the supply position and, if we are satisfied, after the necessary consultations, that imports of potatoes are required, there will be no delay in arranging for them to be licensed.

Mr. Lipton: Why could the Parliamentary Secretary not say that a few minutes ago instead of playing around with the other Questions? Will he take note of the fact that the price of potatoes has gone up by about £4 a ton in the last month, that the price is 60 per cent. higher than it was last year, that the acreage is lower than ever since 1940, and that he really must show a little more energy in dealing with the matter?

Mr. Godber: The reason why I did not say it before was that I did not want to deprive the hon. Member of his right to an answer. In the second place, I accept some of the points he has made, although I do not think that the increase in price has been as much as he said. I assure him, however, that we are very well aware of this position and, as I have tried to indicate, we have it very much in mind.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in the consultations to which he referred in his


original Answer, he will give a great deal of weight to the opinion of the Potato Marketing Board, which knows a good deal more about this subject than some of the questioners this afternoon?

Mr. Godber: I will gladly give my hon. and gallant Friend that assurance.

Fish and Potatoes (Prices)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will hold an investigation into the prices of fish and potatoes at an early date.

Mr. Godber: No, Sir. The recent increases in prices have been due to scarcity of fish on the distant water grounds and a light crop of potatoes. I do not feel that an inquiry would add anything useful. There have already been reports by the White Fish Authority and the Committee on Horticultural Marketing under Lord Runciman, on the distribution costs of fish and horticultural produce, respectively.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister not aware that fish friers all over the country are protesting against the ever-increasing price of fish and potatoes, because they do not want to increase their prices for fish and chips to the general public? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider the request for investigation?

Mr. Godber: As far as price is concerned, fish, of course, are sold by auction. I am told that it has been the very bad weather, added to difficulties in the fishing grounds, that has led to this position, but I understand that in the last week the price has dropped substantially.

Mr. G. Howard: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is the bad weather in the distant-water fishing grounds which is making the supply of fish short and, therefore, prices high, and that for the men who go fishing to these grounds it is a very unpleasant job and they do not wish to make the prices of fish any higher? Secondly, will my hon. Friend ensure that any imports of potatoes will not materially affect producers at home?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I stated something similar to what my hon. and learned Friend has just said in the first part of his supplementary question. I entirely agree with him on that. As regards potatoes, it is a matter of keeping a balance. Certainly, we have to look at both sides.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Contracts (Wage Increases)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent the form of contract accepted by his Department for research, development and production work by private industrial firms, provides for increased payments by his Department to meet the cost of increased wages paid by the contracting firms.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): The Department's policy is to make contracts at firm prices wherever practicable and to agree to a wages variation clause only where it is justified by the circumstances. It would take an unjustifiable amount of time to extract information about the proportion of total contracts which include variation provisions.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not a fact that, according to the evidence given to various Select Committees, the majority of contracts contain this wages variation clause? Does this not mean that wage increases are passed on automatically to his Department? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that these arms contracts are the pacemakers of inflation? In view of that, does he not think that it is not only morally unjustifiable but economically futile for his Government to stop wage increases to health workers and to permit these increases to be passed on automatically to his Department?

Mr. Taylor: I do not accept the assumptions in the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. There are some difficulties in this matter. My Department insists upon a fixed price contract wherever possible, but in the case of research and development contracts it is not always possible to estimate with precision the amount of work involved in the contract and, therefore, some latitude must be left with the Department.

Departmental Party (Air Transport)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Supply what type of aeroplane had been chartered, and what was its normal seating capacity, for the conveyance of his Departmental party from Belfast to London on 23rd October; and what was the number in the party.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: No aircraft was chartered for my right hon. Friend, myself or representatives of the Ministry of Supply, for the journey from Belfast to London on 23rd October. The additional service was provided by British European Airways as a normal commercial flight in the light of their knowledge of the amount of traffic there would be that evening.
The aircraft involved was a Viscount 800 with a seating capacity of 57. Some 14 representatives of the Press as well as the Ministry of Supply party numbering eight were intending to fly back in the aircraft, which was also available to other members of the public.

Civil Transport Aircraft

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply what proposals have been made to him by the Hawker Siddeley Group for the construction of a new civil transport aircraft as a private venture by that company; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: The Hawker Siddeley Group, with others, has made proposals for the private venture development of a medium range turbo-jet aircraft to meet a British European Airways requirement. These proposals are still under consideration.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made in the study and/or design of a supersonic civil air transport machine; to what extent this work is still being carried forward by a group of British firms; if he is satisfied with the success of this group approach; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: A group of companies, in association with and under the direction of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, are making a research study of possible supersonic civil air transport machines. Much preliminary theoretical work has been done, the main experimental work has been planned and certain research models are now being designed and manufactured. My right hon. Friend believes that the group approach to a problem, which in size extends beyond the capacity of any one company, is the right one.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the Minister also accept that the one feature of this industry is uncertainty? We just do not

know what is the future for this industry, which a few years ago showed such promise? Can the Minister tell us whether he is taking any positive steps at all to bring about some more definite mergers or amalgamations to enable this industry to tackle the bigger projects that are essential if it is to prosper in future?

Mr. Taylor: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is not part of the original Question he put down. No single aircraft company in this country has enough technical staff or the facilities to undertake the whole responsibility for research into a project of this size. The potential importance of this project is such that my right hon. Friend decided to proceed with a programme of co-operative research, and certain firms were accordingly entrusted with this responsibility.

Sir A. Harvey: In view of the uncertainty in the industry, affecting both managements and workers, and of the problem of the cost involved in the building, designing and developing of a new aeroplane, will my hon. Friend consider setting up a committee to advise the Government, the industry and all concerned in the country how much this country can afford to spend on this and future projects?

Mr. Taylor: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he discussed with President Eisenhower the question of a common policy in relation to the export of arms to the Middle East and North Africa.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has already given the House a full account of his discussions with President Eisenhower. He does not consider that it would be appropriate to go further into details of particular topics that were or were not discussed.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Lord Privy Seal tell us if the question of the export


of arms to North Africa was at any time the subject of the conversations, and if anybody took into consideration the effect it would have on France?

Mr. Butler: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is making a statement about the supply of arms to Tunisia at the end of Questions, I would ask the hon. Member and the House to await it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Sea Bathing (Sewer Outfalls)

Dr. Bennett: asked the Minister of Health what advice his Department gave to the Gosport Borough Council about the safety, or otherwise, of bathing close to sewer outfalls; and why his Department recommended the removal of notices stating that such bathing might be dangerous.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): That it was for the medical officer of health to advise his authority on such matters. The question of removing the notices was entirely one for the local authority in the light of such advice.

Dr. Bennett: As I think my right hon. and learned Friend accepts as a fact the finding that the active poliomyelitis virus is excreted in the intestines for some months after the infection, whether it be a parylitic infection or not, may I ask him whether he will encourage health authorities not to be too sanguine about the hitherto undiscovered connection between bathing in dirty water of this kind and the incidence of poliomyelitis?

Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is no definite evidence in this country of the transmission of poliomyelitis from this source. I shall, of course, bear in mind what he has been good enough to say.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that while there may not be any definite proof that there is this danger, there is at any rate a risk of it? Would it not be better for his Department to advise local authorities of this possibility in order that they may take every safeguard possible?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. It is, of course, a question of what safeguards are practicable and sensible in this context.

Investigations are going on by the Public Health Laboratory Service to try to see if there is any evidence of any significant risks attaching to sea bathing. However, it is obviously wise to avoid sea bathing anywhere near sewer outfalls.

Salaries

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that salaries in the National Health Service, which in 1948 were payable from £385 to £760, have only risen since that year by 32 per cent., whilst equivalent salaries in the Civil Service, teaching, and local government services have risen by 54 per cent.; and how the rise of 32 per cent. compares with the rise in the cost of living over the same period.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. So far as the Health Service is concerned, increases in salary maxima within that range have not been uniform but have been up to 43 per cent. During the same period, the Retail Prices Index has risen by 48 per cent.

Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware that the figures given in the Question are based upon information supplied by the secretary of the organisation covering the men in the dispute? Would it not be wise to meet the men and try to come to sonic arrangement?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The increases throughout the various administrative and clerical grades have not been uniform in the National Health Service, nor indeed in the Civil Service or in local government. The maxima of the scales of the grades in the Health Service have in fact risen, varying from 18 per cent. to 43 per cent. during the time in question.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen a statement in the Press this morning which gives a comparison relative to the position of these men and others? In view of the fact that public opinion regards his action as unjustified, are not these people being penalised?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have not seen the particular item to which the right hon. Gentleman draws attention. I am aware of the comparable figures, but the right hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate that it is not always possible to give effect to precise comparability in


an inflationary period without giving a further impetus to those inflationary pressures.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it not quite clear that the Minister's use of his veto upon people with a very strong case has produced a very great public reaction against it?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. I have repeatedly pointed out in the House and elsewhere that the use of the word "veto" is inappropriate in this case. What I did was to withhold approval in the context of the present economic situation and in view of the inflationary pressure, with an undertaking to review the matter as soon as economic circumstances make it appropriate.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he was aware of the figures contained in the Question when he gave instructions to the Minister's representatives on the Whitley Council not to agree to the wages concession?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have already indicated to the House that the figures contained in the Question are not the right figures. I was, of course, aware of the correct figures and all other relevant circumstances when making the decision referred to.

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Health what would be the average rise per week of 3 per cent. on the salaries of the workers in the Health Department, covering those in the present dispute; how much would such an increase raise the salaries above the 1948 level; and how this would compare with the rise in the cost of living for the same period.

Mr. Walker-Smith: A 3 per cent. increase in the salaries concerned would mean from £10 to £37 a year. The total increases over 1948 at the maxima of the salary scales would then range between 33 per cent. and 48 per cent. During the same period the Retail Prices Index has risen by 48 per cent.

Doctors (Unprofessional Conduct)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Health if, in cases where doctors in the National Health Service have been severely censured and fined, he will refer the cases to the General Medical Council so that they can consider whether

the doctors have been guilty of infamous conduct in any professional sense.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is already the practice to send to the General Medical Council particulars of all cases which, it seems, may come within their purview.

Mr. Collins: Does that cover the point raised in the Question? Does it mean that when a doctor has been heavily censured in that way his name automatically would be submitted to the General Medical Council?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to study Rule 12 of the Medical Disciplinary Committee Procedure Rules of the General Medical Council, he will see what is the procedure laid down for referring such matters to the Council.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYEES (DISPUTE)

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. I should be grateful for your help and guidance, Mr. Speaker. I asked, as you know, whether it would be possible to put a Private Notice Question to the Minister of Health relating to the dispute now in progress with some thousands of administrative and clerical workers and affecting 7,000 hospitals. You, Sir, quite rightly, I think, in view of Question No. 59 on the Paper, ruled that it would not be necessary to ask a Private Notice Question. The Question I put to you for your guidance is whether it is possible now to ask the Minister to answer Question No. 59? It would enable the Minister to make a statement on the position and on how the dispute can be resolved. Unless something is done soon we shall face a very grave problem in the hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. I have not been asked leave to answer that Question. Moreover, I would point out that another reason which led me to disallow the hon. Gentleman's request was that I did not think it was sufficiently urgent for a Private Notice Question.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask whether the Minister proposes to make a statement following the decision of a responsible organisation?

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that he has heard what has been said.

Mr. Lewis: Can we take it, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister were to ask your permission you would not be backward in granting that permission?

Mr. Speaker: I should have to look at the Question first.

Mr. Mellish: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the position at the moment is that the staffs of 7,000 hospitals have now gone on strike in the sense that they are now slowing down on certain administrative work which may affect the patients' health. I do beg you to believe and ask you to accept that this matter has now become one of urgency. Usually when there is a dispute of this character and it has reached this stage the Minister of Labour tells us here what is being done to resolve it.

Mr. Speaker: I have considered all that and I do not think this matter is urgent enough for a Private Notice Question.

Mr. Mellish: When does it become urgent?

TUNISIA (ARMS DELIVERIES)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. EMRYS HUGHES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the French Government on the question of arms for Tunisia; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Question No. 68.
I deeply regret the differences of opinion which have arisen with the French Government over this matter, the circumstances of which I will briefly describe. I wish to emphasise the following points to the House.
Tunisia, as an independent sovereign State, is entitled to arms for the purposes of legitimate self-defence and internal security, particularly in view of the need to ensure effective control of her frontiers.
Secondly, there has been no dispute whatever with the French Government on the principle that any delivery of arms by any Western country must be subject to satisfactory undertakings by the Tunisian Government that those arms would only be used for legitimate self-defence and internal security and would not under any circumstances be allowed to fall into unlawful hands.
On that point, the Tunisian Government gave assurances which both Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government regarded as satisfactory. No suggestion was made to us by the French Government that the Tunisian assurances on this point were not adequate. On the contrary, the French Government were themselves prepared to send arms to Tunisia and although, in the event, they did not do so, this was not because of any lack of assurances on the point which I have just mentioned, but rather because certain other assurances relating to the source of future supplies to Tunisia were not forthcoming.
Thirdly, France is the traditional supplier of arms to Tunisia and, as we made clear to both the French and Tunisian Governments, we believe that France should continue by agreement with Tunisia to be the main supplier.
Fourthly, it would be most unfortunate if the Tunisian Government should be forced to rely upon arms coming indirectly or directly from the Soviet bloc.
In the light of those four considerations, we have been discussing this matter with the United States, French and Tunisian Governments for a considerable time. At the end of September the Tunisian Government approached Her Majesty's Government about the supply of arms. This followed a similar approach to the United States Government. We informed the Tunisian Government and the French Government of our hope that Tunisian requirements could, as in the past, be supplied by France. If this were not possible, however, Her Majesty's Government, in concert with the United States Government, would supply some arms subject to the assurance as to their use.
At every point we have consulted the French authorities fully and informed them of our communications with the


Tunisian Government and with the United States Government. We urged and secured several postponements of the delivery of the United Kingdom and United States arms in order to meet French difficulties. But on 14th November the French and Tunisian Governments informed us that they had been unable to agree on the basis upon which French arms might have been supplied. Her Majesty's Government accordingly carried out their undertaking to the Tunisian Government by sending a small consignment of arms.
The United States and United Kingdom Governments, in agreeing to supply these arms, have been particularly concerned to prevent a situation arising in Tunisia like that which has arisen in certain other countries where, by their readiness to supply arms, the Communist bloc have acquired a dominant position. Far from being "contrary to the principles of Atlantic solidarity", this action by the United States and United Kingdom Governments is designed to protect the interests of the West as a whole. There is nothing in it which would prevent France from supplying the main arms requirements of the Tunisian Government.
May I repeat what I have already said? It is a great source of sorrow that we should have a difference of opinion with France. Our feelings for France, our close and intimate friendship and alliance with France, is something very special for most of us in this House. I hope that this difference of opinion will be kept in proper perspective; it does not at all affect our view of the great position which France must hold in the Western Alliance and in the world.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Foreign Secretary tell us why there was need for this haste in sending the arms to Tunis? Can he confirm or deny the report that Tunis is getting arms from Nasser as well? Is he transferring the entente cordiale to President Nasser? Did not he anticipate in any way that this action was bound to create a great outcry in France? How can this be said to be cementing the Western Alliance?

Mr. Lloyd: All I can say is that this is a matter which has been under discussion for a considerable time—two months or more—with the French Government, the

Tunisian Government, and the Government of the United States. As I said, we have sought to act in accordance with the four principles which I have indicated to the House.

Mr. Waller Elliot: Would it not be possible, in view of the great repercussions which these matters have upon the N.A.T.O. alliance, for them to be discussed by the representatives in the N.A.T.O. Council before matters reach an acute stage rather than after?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that my right hon. Friend has made a very legitimate point. I would simply say that there has never been any indication on the part of the French Government that they wished this matter to be discussed in N.A.T.O.

Mr. Gaitskell: While regretting, with the Foreign Secretary, that this situation has arisen, may I ask whether it is not clear that had the British and American Governments refused the request of Tunisia we should, in effect, have been lining ourselves firmly behind the French Algerian policy. Further, would it not also have led to a very grave worsening of the relations between the N.A.T.O. Powers and the Arab States generally? May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, whether he would not agree that the concept of interdependence cannot mean the complete acceptance of a policy carried out by one member of N.A.T.O. by all the rest unless there has been proper and full discussion in N.A.T.O. itself? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not also agree that the competition in the supply of arms between the Western Powers and the Soviet bloc constitutes a source of grave danger to the peace of the world? Does not all this point to the desirability of trying to reach some agreement to control the supply of arms to other territories?

Mr. Lloyd: So far as the last question is concerned, we have always sought to see that the supply of arms to countries should be done with a definite restriction upon quantity and in such a way as not to lead to an arms race. As to the wider aspects of the Algerian question and relationships with the Arab States, and so on, I think it would be quite wrong for me to be drawn into that this afternoon. It would be right, however, that the House


should know something of what the President of Tunisia has said about these matters. He said that the provision of arms by a Western country would in no way damage Tunisia's solidarity with the Western world.
He quoted, as an example of his Western policy, the fact that no mention by Tunisia of arms aid had been made during the recent visit of the Czechoslovak Economic Mission to Tunis, although the fact that arms were available had been indicated by the Czechs. This was on 26th September, and he said this publicly. He said that he believed that the French Government were favourably disposed in the matter of arms for Tunisia, and in his broadcast on 7th November he said that Tunisia had, in his own words,
… chosen the West because our convictions, our geographical situation and our interests require it.
He said in his broadcast on 15th November that the arms deliveries had reinforced his confidence in the Western camp, with whom Tunisian solidarity was now total. That was an important statement of policy by the President of Tunisia, to which one must have regard in deciding this matter.

Sir J. Hutchison: In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has just read as having fallen from the lips of President Bourguiba, and in view of the fact that the purpose of our sending this consignment of arms was to avoid arms being sent by Egypt, has my right hon. and learned Friend had any undertaking from President Bourguiba that the weapons offered by Egypt will be refused or, if they have arrived, will be returned?

Mr. Lloyd: The point that I was seeking to make in the fourth principle that I laid down was that the Government of Tunisia should not be forced to have regard to the Communist bloc either directly or indirectly. It has been well known for some time that there was a gift of arms to be furnished by Egypt and Mr. Bourguiba said about that, on 26th September—some considerable time ago—that he regarded this as no more than a symbolic gesture of brotherly friendship and that in those circumstances he could not refuse it; but his determination to orientate himself with the Western world has, I think, been abundantly proved by the other quotations that I have made.

Mr. Bellenger: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House to what extent the United Kingdom and the United States will supply arms to Tunisia? Is this merely a token delivery? Now that Tunisia has rejected a monopoly by France, are the United States and Britain to be the only countries in the Western orbit to supply Tunisia?

Mr. Lloyd: We would not regard anything of the sort as desirable. As I said, and I repeat, we think that, as the traditional supplier, France should be the main supplier. As far as future supplies are concerned, I am personally prepared to take part in any discussions which may help to secure agreement as to the future.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Tunisia has been asking for arms ever since she became independent in March, 1956, that she directed that request to France, and that she has had no reply to this day in arms or equipment?

Mr. Lloyd: This question has certainly been outstanding for a considerable time.

Mr. A. Henderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether his reference to his willingness to enter into discussions refers to willingness to enter into discussions with the French Government, or whether Her Majesty's Government are now willing to enter into discussions with other Governments, including the Soviet Union, in order to attempt, at any rate, to secure an international agreement, under the aegis of the United Nations, regulating in future the supply of arms to other countries?

Mr. Lloyd: I must say quite frankly that I do not think that discussions with the Soviet Union of this particular matter would have any fruitful results at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not try?"] It is performance that counts; it is deeds. The attitude in the past of the Soviet Union has been such as not to give any confidence at all that it wishes to exercise control over this matter or to avoid arousing tension.
As regards the other question, I am prepared to take part in any discussions about this matter.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Was a specific communication made to the French Government of the intention of


Her Majesty's Government to supply arms to Tunisia? If not, would it not have been better to have done so and then allowed sufficient time to elapse to enable the French to decide for themselves, in the light of that communication, whether they would supply arms to Tunisia? Has full regard been had to the spirit of the entente cordiale in these negotiations?

Mr. Lloyd: In reply to the second part of that question, I can certainly say "Yes, Sir." Notice was given. At every stage we have informed the French Government of our discussions with the Tunisian Government and the United States Government. Our intentions have been made abundantly clear.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: May I follow up what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson)? Is it not now plain that attempts to deal with recurring difficulties in the Mediterranean, whether East or West, by a competitive supply of arms have failed and that they lead only to new difficulties? Is it not now time to take up proposals made by Mr. Khrushchev, on the lines put forward by the Prime Minister of Australia on 21st October?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the right hon. Member has the whole matter completely out of perspective. What caused the tension in the Middle East was the supply of £180 million worth of arms to Egypt. This is a question of the supply of arms for one battalion.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that this is competition between the Soviet side and ourselves, and is it not time that such competition was ended?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept for a moment that this is a competition. This is a case of whether or not an independent country, which has clearly expressed its desire to remain with the West, should be able to get arms from the West.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you regard this as a matter which will come under the rules about a special Adjournment of the House. If you do, I should like to move such a Motion.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. There is another Private Notice Question to come, but I can tell the hon.

Member straight away that I would not regard this as coming under Standing Order No. 9 on the point of urgency.

Mr. Silverman: In that event, I beg to give notice that, owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the Foreign Secretary's reply, I shall seek an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment in the ordinary way.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. I do not know whether it has escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think that any hon. Member on this side of the House, except Privy Councillors, was called to ask a question. Would you bear in mind that there are other points of view which, up to the moment, have not been expressed.

Mr. Speaker: This has been a longstanding difficulty, but there is nothing that I can add to what I have already said on the matter.

SOLENT FLYING BOAT (ACCIDENT)

Mr. J. Howard (by Private Notice): Mr. J. Howard (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement upon the loss of an aircraft of Aquila Airways in a fatal accident on 15th November, 1957.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): On Friday evening last, at about 10.46 p.m. G.M.T., a Solent flying boat, G-AKNU, of Aquila Airways Ltd. took off from Southampton Water for Lisbon. Nine minutes later the captain signalled that he was returning in a hurry with No. 4 propeller feathered and at about 11.10 p.m. the aircraft crashed near Chessel, in the Isle of Wight, and caught fire.
I regret to inform the House that of the 58 passengers and crew aboard, 43 were killed, 2 have subsequently died of injuries, 5 are seriously injured and 8 not so seriously.
I have decided that a public inquiry shall be held. Meanwhile, the Chief Inspector of Accidents has commenced detailed investigations.
The House will, I am sure, wish to join with me in expressing deep sympathy with the bereaved and with those who have suffered injury through this accident.

Mr. Howard: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his statement, may I say that the expressions of sympathy which he has expressed are shared by everyone in this House, I am sure, and, moreover, are shared by everyone connected, with the Port of Southampton. They will wish to express the deepest personal sympathy with the relatives of those who perished in this terrible accident.
The accident is all the more terrible because of the impressive safety record of the flying boats. This is the first occasion, I understand, on which Aquila Airways have lost the life of a passenger in the many miles flown from Southampton Water.
May I ask my right hon. Friend also to express the good wishes and thanks of this House to all concerned with the gallant attempts at rescue?

Mr. Beswick: May I say that my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House will certainly wish to be associated with the message of sympathy which the Minister has offered on behalf of this House? It would be wrong to ask questions of detail until the inquiry has taken place, but may I put a point to the Minister? There are special reasons why, in this case, and in another case, the cause of the accident should be established as quickly as possible, but, because investigation officers must now be very fully engaged, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that it will not be any question of

a lack of expert officers or expert staff that will prevent the speedy pursuance of the three inquiries which will now have to take place?

Mr. Watkinson: I can certainly give that assurance.

Dr. King: Hon. Members on this side of the House will wish to be associated with the sympathy which the Government have expressed to the dependants of those who have lost their lives, and in the admiration of the police, the fire service, the ambulance and voluntary workers who did such a magnificent job under emergency circumstances.
May I add two requests to what was said by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard)? Will the right hon. Gentleman put to his colleague the Minister of Health the point raised by Mr. J. B. Priestley that ambulances are without morphia and without plasma, and that both would have been invaluable in this accident? When the inquiry is made, will the inquirers look particularly into the problem of who is to decide, and when shall it be decided, that a heavily laden aeroplane should take off in adverse weather conditions?

Mr. Watkinson: All these matters are relevant to the inquiry. I will only say that very brave attempts at rescue were made, as my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate those who tried to save life.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase contributions and benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts, 1946 to 1957, and the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1957, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under—

(i) paragraph (b) of section two or subsection (1) of section sixty of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or
(ii) subsection (3) of section two of the National Insurance Act, 1946 (as amended by section one of the National Insurance Act, 1951), or subsection (1) of section thirty-eight of the National Insurance Act, 1946;

which is attributable to any provision made by the said Act of the present Session for increasing any rates or amounts of contributions or benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or the National Insurance Act, 1946, and
(b) of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under subsection (3) of section one of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, or in the expenses incurred in the administration of that Act, which is attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing by two shillings and fourpence the weekly rate of pension under the said Act of 1936 to a person satisfying the statutory conditions under that Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[13th November]

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PENSIONERS' TOBACCO RELIEF)

Resolution reported,
That section four of the Finance Act, 1947 (which provides for relief for pensioners in respect of increase in tobacco duty), shall cease to have effect.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(HIGHER RATES, ETC., OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS UNDER INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT.)

3.55 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end to add:
(3) As from the appointed day section two of the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Supplementation) Act, 1956 (which provides for the payment of allowances out of the Industrial Injuries Fund to certain persons), shall have effect as if there were substituted for the words "seventeen shillings and sixpence" the words "forty-five shillings" and as if the reference to "the appointed day" were a reference to the appointed day under this Act.
If this Amendment were accepted, it would give the increase proposed in the Bill for those who are covered by the Industrial Injuries Act to those who are covered by the old compensation Acts and by the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act of 1951.
By the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Supplementation) Act of 1956 these men received the weekly increase of 17s. 6d. This brought the compensation of the married man at that time up to the same rate as that of the man receiving his benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act, that is, for those who were totally disabled. For those who were receiving their benefit under the 1951 Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act, it raised their rate from 40s. to 57s. 6d. These two categories of men—those under the old compensation Acts and those under the Act of 1951—have been left completely out of the provision of the Measure before us today.
It seems to us on this side of the Committee that there is no justification for their being left out. If I could have the attention of the Minister, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he will be very hard put to it today to give a case against these men being left out of the provisions of the Bill. He will be particularly hard put to it in the light of his own speech on the Second Reading of the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Supplementation) Bill of 1956.
I felt that it might be a good thing to refresh the Minister's memory of his own


words or that occasion. In that debate, when the Minister was talking about the reason why we were having a Bill to give such an increase to the old compensation cases and to the time-barred, totally disable pneumoconiotic, he gave the following as one of the reasons:
I would suggest that there is no doubt that we ought to take action in this matter. After all, the date of the accident has, in general, determined whether a man receives his compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or his benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act.
As time has gone on, the amounts payable under the one scheme, certainly in cases of total incapacity, have diverged substantially from those payable under the other. There has been felt to be, therefore—I think the feeling has been pretty general—some considerable element of hardship, at any rate in the case of certain of these old workmen's compensation cases, because the payment these men receive is now oat of line with what would he received by a man similarly injured since the Industrial Injuries Act came into effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1956; Vol. 552. c. 1912.]
I agreed wholeheartedly with those words of the Minister in the House in May last year. I still agree with them. It is because I agree with them so fully that I was surprised, when this Bill came before us, that the Minister seemed to have forgotten those words. Also, he seemed to have forgotten the reasons for his own Act in 1956 and, having forgotten both, he has left these cases completely out in the cold as regards this Bill.
The feeling must have been very strong in his Department because, if we turn to the winding-up speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in that same debate, we find that the hon. Lady said:
We are trying in this Bill to help the men who have had to stand aside, those who do not share in the general level of increased prosperity, the men who are not able to help themselves, the men in need. We hope to do something for them through this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1960.]
Those words were very sound indeed. They suggested that the hon. Lady, the Minister himself and the Department were convinced that, to do justice to those men of the old compensation cases and the time-barred, totally disabled pneumoconiotics, it was essential to raise their rate by 17s. 6d.
4.0 p.m.
We have tabled this Amendment to ensure that we shall not have once again this difference in the amounts received weekly by those men and those who will receive Industrial Injuries benefits. I am quite certain that the Minister has not raised the Industrial Injuries benefit in this Bill because of any generosity on his part.
The other provisions contained in the Bill are very niggardly indeed. The Minister must have decided to raise the Industrial Injuries benefit to the rates proposed in the Bill because of the increase in the cost of living. Because he has felt it to be only just to raise those benefits, he cannot tell us that it will be unjust or wrong to give, in those other cases, an increase that will bring them again to the same level as those receiving Industrial Injuries benefit.
These men and their families have had to suffer exactly the same increase in the cost of living as those who are benefiting under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. In mining villages we do not find shops with one price for those who are receiving Industrial Injuries benefits and a lower price for those receiving benefit under the old compensation Acts. Since that is the position, there is no case at all that the Minister can put forward for refusing to accept our plea.
I received a letter from a man in Halmer End, Stoke-on-Trent. Long before the war this man had his back broken in the pit. He has been paralysed from the waist down for many, many years. He reads HANSARD every day, and he is exceptionally interested in any debate which takes place on National Insurance or Industrial Injuries. He read the whole of last Wednesday's debate from end to end. He, as I am sure every person in his position would, backs up the case which we are making in this Amendment. He gives his reasons, and finishes his letter by saying:
Have not the maimed and disabled, some of whom have been disabled for two, three, or even four decades and their womenfolk, had through the years enough burdens to bear?
Many of these men for whom we are speaking today have been seriously disabled, like this old ex-miner who has written to me. Many of them have not only had to suffer because their income


has been greatly depleted as a result of an accident, but they have had to suffer very great pain day and night over decades. It is for these men that we are asking for justice in this Amendment. I am sure that when the Minister considers his own words and those of the Parliamentary Secretary he will say that he is most willing to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Harold Finch: The Amendment seeks to bring within the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Bill those who are in receipt of compensation under the workmen's compensation Acts. They are men who are seriously incapacitated. Many of them are suffering from pneumoconiosis, and if this Bill is passed a single man who has been industrially injured, and who comes within the provisions of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, will receive £4 5s. per week. Those who come under the workmen's compensation Acts and who are seriously or totally disabled will continue to receive £2 17s. 6d. per week. Many of those men, who are idle, have to draw National Assistance today.
Of course, we welcome any increases and the increases that are provided in this Bill to improve the position of the industrially disabled. I equally welcome the provision which the Government are making in respect of war disabled pensioners. We are covering, both in respect of war disabled pensioners and the industrially injured, a large section of those who are suffering serious incapacity, but these are the only class of men who are being left out. Thousands of these men are seriously incapacitated. They have been seriously disabled for many, many years. I hope that in these circumstances the Minister will seriously consider the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Margaret Herbison) has put forward.
After all, this is a limited liability. Month by month these men are dying. The expenditure that may be involved in this matter is declining month by month and is not something, as is so often said in these National Insurance discussions, where the liability is unknown and may increase. This matter is very limited and will decline year by year. What applies under the workmen's compensation Acts applies to pneumoconiosis.
We had to raise this matter when the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill was under discussion, in 1955. On each occasion that provisions to assist the industrially injured have come before this House we have raised this issue. But there has always been delay in dealing with compensation, and it was not until last year that an increase of 17s. 6d. a week was given to these men. Provision for workmen's compensation was originally the liability of employers in industry. Under the workmen's compensation Acts the employer was liable. To get the employers to meet their liabilities was one of the difficulties that faced my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), when he was Minister. But he failed to achieve that. Of course, it is recognised that many of these employers have now gone into liquidation and the Government realised that when, last year, they granted the increase of 17s. 6d. to the totally disabled.
There will be a grave discrepancy between those who come under the workmen's compensation Acts and those who come under this Bill. A wide gap of £1 7s. 6d. cannot be justified. There is provision for other classes of men, but these men are being left out. I have said that the liability is limited. Above all, these are seriously disabled men, because it will be realised that men who had their accidents under the workmen's compensation Acts and prior to 1948 are bound to be a seriously and permanently disabled class of injured men. I should have thought that in those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would have included these men within the provisions of this Bill.
There is, too, another feature. Supposing that there had not been an industrial injuries Measure. Is it seriously suggested that men would have remained under the workmen's compensation Acts on £2 or £2 17s. 6d. a week? Supposing we had not had this legislation. Surely Parliament would have come forward years ago and increased these benefits under the workmen's compensation Acts. They would not have left seriously incapacitated men on £2 a week. Every justifiable argument can be adduced for these forgotten men of industry. They are being left out. Many of them had their accidents before 1924. Many are suffering from pneumoconiosis, and are


seriously incapacitated, gasping for breath and can hardly walk at all.
Therefore, in the circumstances I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the Amendment, which seeks to do justice to these men who have been injured in industry.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: I wish briefly to support the Amendment and particularly to underline the point that the extra liability on the Industrial Injuries Fund through acceptance of the Amendment would be very small indeed.
I propose to quote from the Department's Annual Report, which gave figures last year for the number of people covered by these schemes. First, there is the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefits Scheme. I refer to this scheme first because I feel that the Committee ought to be particularly concerned to give justice to the people covered by it. Not only is pneumoconiosis a terrible disease, one which, in most cases, gets worse as a man gets older, but those covered by the scheme are people who, for many years, were left out of account by the workmen's compensation Acts because there was an entirely artificial five-year limit on claims in respect of pneumoconiosis and byssinosis. The scheme covered those people for the first time.
According to the Department's Annual Report, the number of people getting benefit under the scheme at the end of last year was almost exactly 8,000, of whom approximately 5,300 were totally disabled people. In the same category I would put the very small number of people who are covered by the Industrial Diseases (Miscellaneous Benefits) Scheme, which has similar provisions for old cases suffering from occupational skin cancer and from exposure to X-rays and radioactive substances. The total number for the whole country under that scheme was only eight. I mention it because, if some Amendment is to be made, those people should not be left out of account.
The Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Scheme, 1951, gives certain supplements to people who had industrial accidents before 1924. There were 2,400 people getting supplements under that scheme. Finally, there was the supplementation scheme of last year which gave 17s. 6d. a week to totally disabled cases under the workmen's compensation Act, and there were approximately 9,000

people getting supplementary benefits under that scheme.
The Committee will appreciate that the total number of all those cases comes to fewer than 20,000. In fact, that will still be an artificially high total, because some people qualify under more than one scheme. Consequently, the Amendment proposes a very small extra liability. As the extra money which is to go into the Industrial Injuries Fund as a result of the financial provisions of the Bill is in any case erring on the generous side, this is an Amendment which the Government could easily accept. This would put the old casualties of industry on the same basis as the new casualties of industry.
The Committee should bear in mind that here we are, in very many cases, dealing with people who were injured at a time when safety measures in factories and mines were very rudimentary compared with what they are today. It is true to say that, in part, our present prosperity has been built on the sacrifices which some of these people have made. It would be wrong to go on treating them on a basis inferior to that on which we treat those who happen to have been injured or to have contracted industrial diseases since 1948.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will say that the Amendment is in some way a breach of the insurance principle. If he says that, I would remind him that the insurance principle has already been breached by the schemes in that payments are made out of the Industrial Injuries Fund to which some of the people concerned have not contributed. A more important reply would be that a worker who contributes to the Industrial Injuries Fund would not resent in any way the payment of proper compensation to the people covered by the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I support what is suggested in the Amendment. I believe it is the right thing to do. I have often wished that there would descend into our midst a Minister—or a Department—who would approach these problems on a human basis. In some strange way, Ministers and Departments seem to forget the human side of these cases of injured workmen.
It is now thirty-five years since we first ventured along the troubled road towards


the provision of some compensation in pneumoconiosis and silicosis cases. It was 1922 when we started to secure elementary justice for these unfortunate men. I was a member of a Select Committee that year which was charged with the responsibility of establishing the claim, and it was not until seven years later, in December, 1929, that these diseases were scheduled as industrial diseases. Ever since then we have been fighting to get elementary justice. Here again we have a Bill which has to a very large degree left out these men.
It is true that these unfortunate men are not physically incapacitated as we understand it in the pits, but they are incapacitated to a larger degree. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite may think that a strange statement. Those who have fractured legs, arms or ribs are able to walk about, but these unfortunate men cannot walk about or sleep properly. That is a tragic state of affairs. This weekend I met one such man, as I do almost every weekend. He has been away from work for four years, suffering from pneumoconiosis. He cannot sleep properly art night. He has not slept in his bed for at least three months. Why? It is because he cannot get his breath if he leaves his kitchen and goes to his bedroom. That man is entitled to the best that any Government can provide. Again, we are pleading on behalf of these unfortunate men.
I am continually asking myself why the Government and the Department—I am not speaking about any individual personally—are so harsh and hardhearted when dealing with men of this type. In previous debates I have given names, ages, and dates of certification in respect of some of these cases. The last time I spoke about pneumoconiosis cases I referred to six of them, and said that the average period that the men lived after their date of certification was twelve months. Surely we are not going to deny these men their rights. Comparatively speaking, they are only a few, but the few are entitled to justice. Whether it concerns one, 1,000 or 1 million, it is our job, when preparing legislation relating to injured workmen, to ensure that they get the best that it is possible to give them.
Here we have an opportunity. The Amendment has not been tabled merely

for the sake of tabling it. Behind it is a profound desire that these men shall be given the justice which has been denied them in days gone by. I have sometimes wished I could wave a magic wand and transfer some Members of the Government and some officials from the Department to a mining village so that they could see some of these men who know—they tell one so—that in a very few months' time they will be called to their reward. Surely that should appeal to the Government. It ought to persuade the Minister to say to himself, "Here are people who have contracted this tragic disease, who have given the best they could to industry when they were in a condition to do so, and they should now be protected by the Government and by industry."
I plead with the Minister to accept this Amendment so that these people, who have been forgotten in the past, can know that now they are to be treated in the way in which they should have been treated many years ago.

Mr. George Deer: I wish to support the Amendment and to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in this case we should, as it were, be knocking at an open door. Hon. Members will recall that we attempted to deal with this matter by means of a Private Member's Bill some time ago. Later, the Minister received deputations, not only from the Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Mineworkers but from hon. Members of this House. I was one of the members of the deputation, and we pleaded with the right hon. Gentleman to do something. At that time the only difficulty was the problem of dividing the partially disabled from the totally disabled. Then we had a supplementary Measure, bringing in the 1948 cases and giving them the 17s. 6d. to which we thought they were entitled.
Surely, we do not want once again to go through all the formula of adding on benefits in the main Act and then having a separate Bill to put the matter right because these people have slipped back a peg? If the Minister will examine the matter from the standpoint of Parliamentary expediency, he will see that the case we are making for this Amendment is reasonable. It is something which should be done by one Bill rather than by two.
As some hon. Members may be aware, I have been fortunate enough to win a place in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills, and if we do not settle this matter today an opportunity will be provided for raising it in another way. But it would be much better and tidier if the Minister conceded that these people must not be forced back to the inferior position which they occupied prior to his own supplementary Measure. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take heed of the appeals of my hon. Friends and put the matter right by accepting this Amendment.

Mr. Ronald Williams: I hope that the Government will not get off to a false start over this Measure. It is heartbreaking to those of us who have been concerned for so many years in making representations on these matters to successive Ministries to find ourselves faced with this position in respect of clearly deserving cases of such long standing, and the fact that we have to put forward all the old arguments again. We have reason to feel angry about it.
What is the position of the Government regarding the cases mentioned in the Amendment? The Government have the Industrial Injuries Fund available; they know the cases to which this Amendment relates, because they have dealt with such cases in earlier legislation. The Government provided a supplementation Act in 1956 for the purpose of bridging the gap which then existed, and today they propose to bring in a Bill which will widen the gap without providing for this class of case. How can the Government possibly justify that attitude? It may be that they consider they must have two bites at the cherry. It may be that the Government concede the argument, but desire certain things to be dealt with in this Bill and intend to deal with the matter referred to in the Amendment by means of following legislation.
Were that the case I should have thought that before the debate reached this point the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would have said so and thus saved a lot of time. From the silence of the right hon. Gentleman I think we must assume that, despite the powerful arguments addressed to him from this side of the Committee, this Amendment is not to be accepted. That means that the Government are going

back on the position which obtained in 1956. They are eating their words regarding the arguments which were then advanced, with the full knowledge of the facts that these are long-standing and deserving cases. They are neglecting these people although there are funds available and the necessary administrative machinery to provide the remedy.
I hope the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will not feel affected by certain arguments used recently in connection with other matters and say something about inflation. Not only would that be insulting to the possible beneficiaries under the proposals contained in the Amendment, but it would be quite inconsistent with the views expressed by the Government in 1956, and it would be treated with derision by electors in every constituency in the country.
Had I the slightest confidence that such an appeal would meet with success, I would join with my colleagues in appealing to the Minister to accept this Amendment. But because both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have remained silent during this debate we must assume that, here again, we shall have to embark on all the old difficulties and troubles in our efforts to establish a case for these people who were badly disabled in the service of their country. What nonsense it is, and what complete hypocrisy, on the one hand to ask people for increased productivity, and to take the risks which may be attendant upon their efforts in that direction, and, on the other, to say that if they are injured before a certain date their position be ignored and, in effect, that they shall be publicly insulted, condemned and neglected by the Government.
I say that there is no argument against the principle of this Amendment. I put it as strongly as that. If arguments are voiced against the drafting of the Amendment, that is something which can be dealt with by the advisers who assist the Minister to put right such deficiencies. But the principle of the Amendment is unanswerable, even on the basis of arguments which have already been used regarding the situation previous to 1956. As I say, I hope that the Government will not get off to a false start with this legislation by doing a grievous wrong to these people.

4.30 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I add my plea to those of my hon. Friends that the Amendment be accepted. Last year an attempt was made to give justice to this section of the disabled people, and if the arguments used then were valid, they are still valid and should be applied now.
These people have met with difficulties all their lives. They worked in industry when few precautions were taken against pneumoconiosis or the possibility of serious limb injuries being suffered by those employed in the mines. They worked in a period when there were difficulties about the diagnosis of diseases, particularly pneumoconiosis. It was almost impossible for them to secure a diagnosis which was in their favour. Facilities for treatment were limited and in many areas people, having contracted the disease, were left to a lingering death without receiving treatment at all.
We are now at a stage when precautions are taken in the industries in which the disease is prevalent and when safety measures have been introduced. Moreover, there are many more facilities for early diagnosis, and in industrial areas such as Stoke-on-Trent there has been a very great improvement in the facilities for the treatment of pneumoconiosis and spinal and limb injuries. We therefore ask that those people who have been condemned for so many years shall not be further condemned.
After all, they are in exactly the same position as every other section of the community which the Bill seeks to aid. They have to meet the higher cost of living and all the difficulties of increased rent. We should not leave them to lag behind.
One point which has been stressed but which I should like to stress again is that, the older they get, the worse their troubles become. Anyone who has lived among people who suffer from pneumoconiosis and who has watched them gradually decay and suffer, especially in the winter, between November and early March, will say without hesitation that we ought not to hand out any further injustice to them but ought to implement the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. John McKay: I do not want to take up time unnecessarily on the

Amendment, but I am not quite sure whether there is not some confusion about it. The Amendment seeks to increase the sum of 17s. 6d., which was based on the 1956 Act, to 45s., but the Act says that it does not apply to pneumoconiosis and byssinosis. Whether it will apply in practice, I do not know.
The main point is that we are dealing in the Amendment with old compensation cases. We ought to remember that because of the introduction of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act we have in practice almost been debarred from amending the Acts dealing with the old compensation cases. It appears that all improvements in those cases have depended on an amendment being made to the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. We therefore have old-established cases of people who are unable to work and who, had not the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act come into operation, would no doubt have benefited by improvements in their conditions, because without the slightest doubt the old compensation Acts relating to benefits in old and new cases would have been amended to such an extent that the benefits paid would practically have reached the figures suggested in the Amendment.
Even if we accept the Amendment and give these men greater benefits, bringing them up to the basic level of men under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, we shall not be giving them the total amount of money which the other men can claim. In other words, the Amendment proposes a basic payment up to 85s., but that is not the maximum for a man under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. Under that Act a man who is insured can claim unemployability allowance in addition. As I understand it, even if the Amendment is accepted, these men who come within the old compensation cases will be unable to claim unemployability allowance in addition to the 85s. Under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act they would have been able to claim not only 85s. but also an extra unemployability payment.
The Amendment therefore does not bring the two classes into parity. While we may colour all our speeches with sentimental feeling and with an appeal to good nature, in fact we are dealing with


a necessity. We cannot always press arguments forward with pure logic. They must be built up with sympathy and human understanding.
We are dealing here with men who have the same disability, the same kind of injury—there is not one iota of difference in their economic or human disability—as those covered by the Bill. They are people who were seriously injured while endeavouring to produce wealth for the country. Yet, because their injury occurred at a certain time, they are not to benefit under the Bill. We raise the standard for others in accordance with the cost of living and the new ideas of life, yet we do not raise the standard for those men, who encountered dangers while working in industry for the good and welfare of the country. Why we cannot see our way clear in the Bill to bring some consolation to these people, I cannot understand. I hope that action will be taken in this respect.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I have delayed rising to my feet to take part in the discussion because I felt sure that before this the Minister would have made a statement to the Committee. I thought it might be said that no action could be taken under the Bill, but that cannot be the excuse because, if it had been so, the Minister would have risen to make a statement before now.
I cannot understand why we should not take care of people whose disability was incurred either before it was covered by the legislation or when it was covered by legislation which did not come within the provisions for National Insurance. As an ex-miner who has worked and lived with these people and seen their suffering, before these diseases were recognised as scheduled diseases, and having suffered injuries myself, I certainly sympathise with them, because there is no injury worse than that which means that a man is unable to move about and to live an ordinary life, quite apart from being unable to earn a livelihood.
It has been stated that the expectancy of life for this section of the community is short. If these men are compelled to live at a lower standard because of the increased cost of living—a factor which led to the introduction of the Bill—their expectancy of life will be still shorter, I refuse to believe that the Ministry has no experience of many of these cases. One

of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors surprised the House by going a long way further in benefits in respect of pneumoconiosis than many of my hon. Friends expected. I am therefore amazed that the Minister has not made a statement in this discussion. How can it be argued that circumstances today and the cost of living—never mind who is responsible for it—are such that although increases have been made in industry and have been found necessary in National Insurance, this one section of the community should continue to be left outside? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to some of the points that I have made.
None of us should look upon old-age pensions as a burden. We are dealing here with the aged population of industry. We shall deal a double blow by this Bill not only to those people, which would be an injustice in any circumstances, but to the weakest section of the community, which has suffered most. These are the people who are often confined to their homes. They cannot enjoy normal pleasures, and many of them cannot look forward to a night's sleep, or, even in the best of weathers, to going out of doors. Can the Minister justify singling them out for treatment which he does not expect other sections to suffer?
I am amazed that nothing has been said from the Government side of the House about the pleas that we have made. There has been no reply whatever; no Government supporter has shown sufficient interest to get up and add to the weight of our arguments. I do not believe that Government supporters are inhuman. My experience is that when one makes a direct appeal to them as individuals they are generous, but when they come here collectively they are not. I am making my appeal to them individually for decency and fair play.
Whatever the Minister may say, it will leave a nasty taste in the mouth if we do not give these people fair play. We are not even asking for justice. This is a section which has always been forgotten. I put my emphasis on the fact that this is a diminishing responsibility. It is easy to get rid of it by refusing to give anything, and making these people suffer even more, although they are the ones who need additional sustenance. They


should get the best and not have to be content with the lowest. How can the Government or any of its supporters justify legislation to leave out a section of the community which is suffering and has suffered so long?
In my early days in the mines we all ran the risk of pneumoconiosis every time we went underground. Every worker in every industry runs a risk of injury. Pneumoconiosis is a risk taken in the mining industry. Economic circumstances demanded that even when we suspected that we had the disease we had to go on working. We were not covered by legislation. The Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have an opportunity of doing something for this section of the community, and I hope they will let us know what they intend to do. They will be condemned for all time if, in their desire for economy, they do nothing.
We are speaking on behalf of a very small number of people who are still dependent on the old workmen's compensation. We should bring them into the Bill and let them get the same benefits as everybody else. If other people have a good case, their case is very much stronger.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Nearly 99 per cent. of our people in the mining industry are tainted with the horrible disease, pneumoconiosis, which has been referred to repeatedly. No one is better aware of the position than my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams). When he was in our county of Durham dealing with these cases on behalf of the Durham Miners' Association we had the privilege, as members of the Durham Miners' Executive, of attending with him. We have seen the position of these sufferers in Durham and elsewhere. It is deteriorating rapidly.
I am therefore most gratified at the way the debate has proceeded and the cases have been put forward. The name we used to have in the mining industry for this terrible disease, before it received its name "pneumoconiosis," was the "black lung." Probably 90 per cent. of hon. Members of this Committee who worked in the mining industry are touched with the disease, which they brought with them from the industry in

which many of them spent a great part of their lives.
Why is not the Minister prepared to accept the Amendment? Is it because of the amount of money which would be needed to give the increased benefit which is being asked for? I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary who will reply to the debate has consulted her right hon. Friend, and will concede the Amendment, and so give benefit to unfortunate people who cannot help themselves.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): The Amendment, as the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said, seeks to increase the supplement of 17s. 6d. which was passed in last year's Act for the totally incapacitated and is paid for out of the Industrial Injuries Fund.
We are dealing with two different things, are we not, when we are considering the old cases under workmen's compensation and the Industrial Injuries cases? I think that all hon. Members present realise the distinction, and it is essential to make it clear. Workmen's compensation is on an entirely different basis. The compensation was paid for loss of earnings and was a liability on the employers, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), pointed out, whereas the basis of loss of faculty was accepted by the House of Commons under the Industrial Injuries Act.
It is necessary to emphasise that Industrial Injuries contributions have been paid only since 1948 and refer only to accidents or diseases contracted since that date. The proposers of the Amendment have in mind, as the hon. Lady made clear, an increase which is based on the single man, receiving 40s. workmen's compensation. The proposal is to give him a supplement of 45s., making his benefit equivalent to the 100 per cent. Industrial Injuries rate proposed under this Bill, of 85s.
I wonder if the proposers realise that if that were accepted it would mean that the supplement, which is a charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund, would be greater than the basic benefit which such a man now enjoys under workmen's compensation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]


Secondly, a married man at present receiving 50s. under workmen's compensation, if he were given the proposed supplement of 45s., would receive 95s., which would be 10s. more than the 100 per cent. rate proposed for the Industrial Injuries man. We are talking of men who sustained injury before 1948. In most cases their children will have grown up and be above school-leaving age, but there are a few married men with school children and their rate is 55s. The Amendment would give a supplement of 45s., bringing them up to 100s. in all and making them 15s. better off than those receiving benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
Married men form the majority of the old cases, the workmen's compensation cases. That was why, when last year's Bill was going through the House, we explained that we had decided that the flat rate was the best provision that could be made as it gave the benefit in the direction where the need was most. Since there has been considerable reference to the discussion which took place when the 1956 all was going through the House, and since comments of my right hon. Friend and myself have been quoted by hon. Members opposite, I think I should stress what we had in mind at that time and I should especially quote another part of the speech of my right hon. Friend in which he said:
I carefully considered the possibility of doing this in another way and simply bringing up the three workmen's compensation rates, 40s., 50s., 55s. to the current Industrial Injuries rate of 67s. 6d., but after looking at it, I felt that was the wrong way to proceed. I am bound to admit that I was influenced by the principle which I have just indicated, that we should not put this charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund, except on a basis of real need and real justice. If we did it that way, we would put the biggest charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund in the direction where the need is least, that of the single man, and the smallest supplement where the need is greatest, the case of the married man with a child."—[OFFICIAT REPORT, 15th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1913.]
Turning to my own comments, I of course accept that part which the hon. Lady read earlier, where I demonstrated the need and our desire to help, but I also want to stress this to keep the matter in proportion. I said:
The disparity…
—that is, the disparity between the old workmen's compensation and Industrial Injuries rates:

justifies some improvement…. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1957.]
We effected some improvement with the 17s. 6d. flat rate addition to the totally disabled.
The 17s. 6d. supplement we gave last year was not the first improvement which workmen's compensation cases had enjoyed. Under the 1946 Act, passed by hon. Members opposite, those cases were given limited rights to sickness benefit, and in 1953 the limitations on the sickness benefit were removed so that they had full entitlement to sickness benefit. Again, under the 1946 Industrial Injuries Act, also passed by hon. Members opposite, they were allowed two of the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act—that is to say, they could claim unemployability supplement and constant attendance allowance on the same terms as the Industrial Injuries claimants, except that the dependency benefit was not payable with unemployability supplement; but in 1953, that restriction was removed. They have participated in all subsequent improvements in the various Acts relating to Industrial Injuries and National Insurance benefits and they will do so again under the present Bill.
A number of comments have been made. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said that he wished some Minister would approach these matters on humane principles and suggested that my Department—not the people in it—was harsh and hard-hearted. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) said his sympathy was with these old people in industry and he felt that our sympathy should be with them also. We have demonstrated our practical wish to help the old workmen's compensation cases as far as possible because we passed last year's Act, which gave the 17s. 6d. addition, whereas nothing was done by hon. Members opposite when they were in power, except in the other benefits I have illustrated.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Will the hon. Lady agree that 50,000 partially disabled were left out, that there are many who are 100 per cent. disabled, and that still nothing is being done for them?

Miss Pitt: I am not sure that I should be in order in talking about the partially disabled, because they are not included


in the terms of the Amendment. A partially disabled man is able to earn something and to get some benefit out of our higher wage rates.
Reference has been made to the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act and the men who, under that Act, were brought into the 17s. 6d. supplement. I hope that clears up the point which was rather fogging the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), who thought they were not included. They were included in the 17s. 6d. supplement.
I want to emphasise particularly, in view of the criticism which has been made about unjust treatment of workmen's compensation cases, that those cases have had a greater measure of help from my party than from hon. Members opposite. What we should remember—it is the reason for the Amendment not being acceptable—is that the 17s. 6d. was granted as recently as last year. If we are to talk in terms of increased cost of living we should note that that is worth now only 8d. less than when it was granted and—this is the essence of the situation—both the workmen's compensation cases and the pneumoconiosis benefit scheme cases will be eligible under the proposals in the Bill for the increased rates of unemployability supplement or of sickness benefit, if they satisfy the conditions. Those who are older, if they are now retirement pensioners, will benefit from the proposed increases bringing retirement pensions to the highest level ever. Therefore, it cannot be said that they will not derive any benefit from the Bill. I think we have added to our record of providing further help to people on workmen's compensation.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not often find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), to whom I always listen with respectful attention, but I think the time has come for us to end saying these things about the humane attitude of the Tories and for us to call attention to one or two facts, both in the speech to which we have just listened and in the debate. The first fact is that no Tory, apart from the Parliamentary Secretary, has intervened in the debate or made a point of any kind, nor even made any suggestion on behalf of these suffering

people. The whole of these proposals section by section are designed to give the least money to those who are the worst off.
The poorest of the retirement pensioners get the least benefit; they are the victims of a miserable, dirty swindle which started in 1955 and has now been brought to a fine art. I have had the privilege of appearing for some of the most eminent financiers who have come into conflict with the law in the last twenty-five years, but I have never seen a series of documents like these, nor any which contained more fraudulent material. If the Minister were charged under the ordinary law with the production of these documents as a financial basis of information, he would get penal servitude in any criminal court.
If I catch your eye, Sir Charles, on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," I shall have something to say on Clause 2 about the Report of the Government Actuary. I have no doubt that the Actuary has performed his additions and subtractions and even multiplications with accuracy, but his Reports are based on certain political assumptions. They are based on fraudulent assumptions provided by the Government. Who provides the figures on which he bases the estimates of revenue of the Industrial Injuries Fund? Who says that industrial injuries are going to continue at a certain rate? What allowance is to be made for the question of whether the present President of the Board of Trade remains in office, or whether the cuts on investment continue which tend to increase accidents because they restrict the provision of new machinery?
5.0 p.m.
These are not small matters. So far as byssinosis is concerned, it is an accepted fact in the cotton industry that there is no need at all for any new entrant into the industry to be exposed to any risk of byssinosis provided that modern machinery is installed. A modernly-equipped card room gives virtually no possibility of dust at all, but there are all too few such card rooms, and, as long as the present Government are in office, the restriction on investment and the credit squeeze tend to increase the risk of byssinosis.
I do not wish to raise more than one or two points, but I am bound to say that the speech of the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was so disappointing and so full of calculated attention to points not raised in the debate and so empty of any answer to specific points that were raised that it is obviously impossible not to criticise it. I do not wish to criticise the Minister personally. I have had some decent letters from him in which he expressed pious hopes of doing something in the future, and so on. I had the privilege of hearing him at Brighton, but, for the moment, I will talk on this narrow point.
Let us apply a fairly simple test to the matter. On the figures put forward the total cost of this in the worst full year would be £1½ million, a rapidly diminishing sum, unfortunately, because it is a rapidly diminishing number of people who become entitled. I know that when one talks about £1½ million in the House of Commons there is always some Tory economist who gets up and says that it is a very large sum. So it is by comparison with what I have in the bank at the present moment.
The National Insurance Fund stands at £1,500 million. That is the amount by which the State has drawn from contributors mare than it has paid out. The Industrial Injuries Fund stands at £150 million. We are told that the Minister of Pensions combines those two offices in the interest of economy. We were all very unhappy about this combination of the two Ministries because we always thought that the Ministry of Pensions had something of a heart while the Ministry of National Insurance had a good deal of liver. They were combined in the interest of economy because, the right hon. Gentleman said, we have to face the expense involved to the community in having this diversification.
The total cost of the two Ministries in 1952–53 was £21 million. In 1953–54 it went up by £600,000. It was said that there had not been time to introduce the co-ordination which would result in the necessary economies. In the next year it went up another £600,000 and the following year, the last year reported, by £900,000. The right hon. Gentleman is wasting by his oversurfeited. Ministry a great deal more each year than these proposals would cost.
That is not all. If we turn to the next page—and I confess that some of the figures are most astonishing—we find note (f) which states:
The total payments for the year ended 31st March, 1956, exclude the sum of £100 million of investments (at cost) which were transferred during the year to the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund "—
this fund is now making reserves, it is so prosperous—
at market value involving a loss on revaluation of £1,341,728.
Therefore, whilst the Minister is making this economy of £1½ million at the expense of the poorest and those suffering most, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is losing £1½ million on his shares by the terrible depreciation of securities since the Tories came to office. That is only on one-fifteenth of the money, and assuming that the loss is the same on the rest of the shares, then, apparently, there is something like an overall loss of £20 million on these investments owing to the incompetence of the Government.
The hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary then gets up and says, "We have really been very good. We have given them 17s. 6d.", and this at a time when the Government are losing £20 million through sheer incompetence. Indeed, the Government have brought the country to the situation where Government securities now stand lower than they ever have since the Battle of Hastings, when confidence in Government securities stands lowest and when trustees are facing actions all over the country for breach of trust because they invested in trustee securities instead of breaking the rules and investing in equities.
I am hoping to be fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair when we come to the main debate on the Clause, and, realising that I shall have less chance of doing so if I go on now, I will be brief in my hopes for the future. I hope to be able to develop this argument in the main debate on the Clause, and to argue about what appears to me to be a complete fraud on the old-age pensioners and a calculated disregard by the Government of the poorest of the community who are not, from the Government's point of view, electorally reliable and therefore may he electorally written off.

Miss Herbison: I wish to raise one or two points mentioned in the Minister's


reply. The hon. Lady seemed to base her whole case on the improvements made from time to time before May, 1956. If the hon. Lady will look at HANSARD she will find that on almost every point her case was made on the improvements which these people had got out of the Industrial Injuries Fund prior to 1956. The one improvement which she mentioned that came in 1956 was the fact that the 17s. 6d. increase had been given, and since then, she proudly told us, there had been only an 8d. increase in the cost of living.
That was not the basis for the Bill last time. The basis last time was clearly stated by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary as that of giving justice to those men as compared with those receiving their benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act. If the figures which we have put down cannot be accepted, then I must ask the Minister a further question to which I hope he will reply, because, if we do not get a suitable reply, we shall have no alternative but to divide on the Amendment.
If the right hon. Gentleman really felt that there ought to be an equivalent increase as compared with the 1956 Bill, then, surely, it would have been easy for him, if he considered that the 45s. figure was wrong, to put down an Amendment. It seems to me that since he did not do that the whole of the hon. Lady's argument on that part was quite a "phoney" argument in support of the Government's decision to do nothing at all.
What we have tried to do in our Amendment is to bring the old compensation cases of pneumoconiotics up to the level of those receiving Industrial Injuries benefit. If we are to speak about the cost of living then it should be pointed out that the increase proposed in the Bill is being given because of the increase in the cost of living. Therefore, as far as these people are concerned, another part of the hon. Lady's argument falls completely. A great fight was put up last year in two Private Members' Bills to get justice for the totally disabled. We have not as yet been able to get justice for the partially disabled.
In this case, the Government are leaving these men to tail far behind the other men. As my hon. Friend said, the Industrial Injuries Fund is increasing, and we

are asking young men to pay an increase of 2s., when actuarily, even for their own pension, forty years hence, they should not have to pay that. It would seem that, in justice to these people, the Government ought to have accepted the Amendment.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I hope that the Committee will be ready to come to a decision on this matter, but it would be discourteous if I did not respond to the request made to me by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) to add one word.
I think that the real nub of this discussion is this. The Bill now before us relates in very large measure to a proposal to increase benefits last fixed, with the exception of the case of widowed mothers and their children, in the Measure introduced by my noble Friend, Lord Ingleby, as he now is, in the autumn of 1954. The proposal in the Amendment is to increase the amount fixed as recently as last year, in the Measure to which reference has been made, and which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I had the privilege of taking through this House.
Therefore, it seems to me that there is a real difference between the proposals to adjust benefits fixed some three years ago and a proposal to increase payments fixed only in the Bill of last year. There is perhaps more reason for a little caution here when we recall, as my own words, which were quoted, indicate, that we are here dealing with a proposal not to increase contributory benefits at all but to increase the supplement paid out of a fund to which others have contributed in respect of people who have no contributory rights at all.
I think, as I said last year, this does call for caution. I should not like to leave this on the basis that the people concerned—and some, at any rate, of them are very proper objects of sympathy and understanding, as was very well said by one or two hon. Members—would not, in fact, gain if Parliament passed the Bill now before us.
We are dealing solely in this Amendment with the case—I refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough)—of the totally incapacitated. It seems to me clear that these are people who must either, by reason of age, be in a position to gain from the improvements


in retirement pensions within this Bill or the improvements in sickness benefit, or, failing that, in the unemployability supplement under the Industrial Injuries Act, all of which are being improved under this Measure.
I must re-echo what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says, that we have, and we consider that we have, behaved fairly and generously to this section of the community. Therefore,

we do not feel able, despite the real eloquence which has been displayed from the benches opposite, to accept a proposal to increase so very largely a supplement on which Parliament decided only last year in order to deal with the situation which has changed very little since then.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 199, Noes 242.

Division No. 4.]
AYES
[5.15 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oswald, T.


Albu, A. H.
Hale, Leslie
Owen, W. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, W.
Padley, W. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, S.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Anderson, Frank
Hayman, F. H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Parkin, B. T.


Balfour, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Paton, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.


Beswick, Frank
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, T. F.


Blackburn, F.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pentland, N.


Blenkinsop, A.
Holman, P.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blyton, W. R.
Holmes, Horace
Popplewell, E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, J. H.
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hubbard, T. F.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Prootor, W. T.


Boyd, T. C.
Hunter, A. E.
Pryde, D. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Randall, H. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, John


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Redhead, E. C.


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reeves, J.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pnos, S.)
Reid, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Royle, C.


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon. C.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Chapman, W. D.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, E. W.


Clunie, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Coldrick, W.
Lawson, G. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Ledger, R. J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cronin, J. D.
Lindgren, C. S.
Snow, J. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacDermot, Niall
Sparks, J. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McInnes, J.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Deer, G.
McLeavy, Frank
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Diamond, John
Mainwaring, W. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, S. T.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, G. O.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mason, Roy
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mellish, R. J.
Thornton, E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Messer, Sir F.
Tomney, F.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Fernyhough, E.
Monslow, W.
Weitzman, D.


Finch, H. J.
Moody, A. S.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fletcher, Eric
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Foot, D. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moss, R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moyle, A.
Wigg, George


Gibson, C. W.
Mulley, F. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Orbach, M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)




Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Woof, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Winterbottom, Richard
Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gibson-Watt, D.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Aitken, W. T.
Glover, D.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Alport, C. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Goodhart, Philip
Madden, Martin


Armstrong, C. W.
Gough, C. F. H.
Manningham, Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Ashton, H.
Gower, H. R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marshall, Douglas


Atkins, H. E.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Mathew, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maude, Angus


Balniel, Lord
Green, A.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Barber, Anthony
Grimond, J.
Mawby, R. L.


Barlow, Sir John
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Barter, John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Neave, Airey


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bidgood, J. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur (Macclesfd)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Black, C. W.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Osborne, C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Page, R.G


Braine, B. R.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Partridge, E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peyton, J. W. W.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hope, Lord John
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bryan, P.
Hornby, R. P.
Pitman, I. J.


Bonus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pott, H. P.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Powell, J. Enoch


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Campbell, Sir David
Howard, John (Test)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Channon, Sir Henry
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Profumo, J. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Redmayne, M.


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Renton, D. L. M.


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Cooper, A. E.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Iremonger, T. L.
Robertson, Sir David


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cunningham, Knox
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Russell, R. S.


Davidson, Viscountess
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Sharples, R. C.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Shepherd, William


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kimball, M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kirk, P. M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Duncan, Sir James
Lagden, G. W.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Duthie, W. S.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Langford Holt, J. A.
Storey, S.


Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Leather, E. H. C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leavey, J. A.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Errington, Sir Eric
Leburn, W. G.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Teeling, W.


Fell, A.
Legh, Hon Peter (Petersfield)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Fort, R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Foster, John
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
McAdden, S. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Freeth, Denzil
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vickers, Miss Joan







Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Webbe, Sir H.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Wall, Major Patrick
Whitelaw, W. S. I.



Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Wood, Hon. R.
Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.


Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Woollam, John Victor

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: In the last short debate there were references to the size of the Industrial Injuries Fund, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take an opportunity to tell us a little about it. It may be the last chance we have of discussing the finances of the Fund for some time. The original Statute provided, I believe, for a quinquennial valuation, and presentation of a report to Parliament, but that, so far as I know, has never been done. Whether that merits the savage penalty of seven years' penal servitude that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) recommended for the Minister, I am not sure, but it certainly merits some explanation from him now.
The Industrial Injuries Fund is, as we know, a separate fund. It provides insurance against injury at work and is, as we were reminded just now, on a different basis from that for workmen's compensation. The old workmen's compensation system compensated a worker for loss of earnings resulting from the incapacity; the present system compensates an individual, whoever he may be, for loss of function. Loss of function is the same whether a man is earning a large or a small sum of money, though the loss of a leg to a man earning only £10 a week may be a more serious deprivation, in many ways, than a similar loss to a man earning £30 or £40 a week, who can, for example, well afford a motor car.
This scheme was introduced to replace in large measure the old system of workmen's compensation by the new method of compensation for loss of function, with approval throughout industry. For this reason, of course, it is a scheme in which a flat-rate contribution with a flat-rate benefit is entirely appropriate. Although we have been discussing a great deal recently the introduction of graduated contributions for graduated benefits, nobody would propose that that should apply in this case.
Our only concern here, therefore, is not so much with the method of financing as with the adequacy of the benefits, and the

reasonable relationship between benefits and contributions. As to the adequacy of the benefits, we may be concerned at a later stage with the hardship and unemployability supplemental allowances which are mentioned in the Schedules, but here, as I say, we are more concerned with the relationship between the benefits and contributions.
The proposal authorised by this Clause is for an increase of contributions as set out in page 2 of the Report of the Government Actuary, in which we see that the old rate payable by a male insured person was 5d., and is now to be increased to 8d.; and by the employer, 6d., which is to be raised to 9d. For women, there are other increases, but the remarkable fact about the proposed increases is that they are 66⅔per cent. in respect of a woman and 60 per cent. in respect of a man; but for the employer, in both instances, they are only 50 per cent.
Why this disproportionate increase between the injured person and his employer? Industrial injury is a matter very much within the sphere of control of the employer. After all, the old system of workmen's compensation laid the burden on the employer entirely to compensate the injured individual. It seems rather remarkable that now, when there is an increase of contributions, it should bear more heavily on the injured person than upon the employer. I do not think that my calculations are wrong.
It may be said that to get an exactly proportionate increase in the contributions would involve an odd halfpenny and be rather difficult. No doubt it would, if we were to get an exactly proportionate increase, but did the Minister consider, for example, making it 7d. for the injured man and 10d. for his employer; and 4d. and 7d. respectively in respect of the woman? If not, why not? Presumably, various possible increases and rates were considered, and this one that I have suggested, though I am not necessarily proposing it, must surely have been considered then.
Did it occur to anybody to ask himself whether it was wise, or consistent with the nature of the scheme itself, that the increase in contribution should be


heavier for the injured person than for the employer, so largely responsible for the conditions in which the workers work? After all, workmen's compensation legislation in enlightened States has tried to give a financial incentive to the employer to prevent injury. It may be that there is some simple explanation of this, but whatever it be, I think the Committee deserves to know it.
5.30 p.m.
Passing from the relative share of the employer and employee to the total increase proposed, the Government Actuary tells us, in paragraph 6 of his Report:
… I estimated that in order to ensure the solvency of the Fund the rates of contribution prescribed by the 1954 Act would have to be raised by 18 per cent.
That is to provide for improved benefits in 1954. He went on to say that, since that was written, three other Acts had been passed, all of which imposed some slight additional liability on the Fund.
Let us suppose that the total of this 18 per cent. in 1954 and the slight additional liability for 1956 brings the total up to 18½ percent.—an 18½ per cent. increase in the rates of contribution which would be necessary. But the increase in the total combined contributions proposed here is 54½ per cent. in respect of a man and 57 per cent. in respect of a woman. Take 18½ per cent. from 54½ per cent. and we have 36 per cent. for a man and 38½ per cent. for a woman.
The increase proposed, therefore, in respect of this new Measure is presumably 36 per cent. in respect of a man and 38½ per cent. in respect of a woman. Yet the increase proposed in the benefit is only 25 per cent. at best. This is illustrated by other paragraphs, namely, paragraphs 3 and 5, where it is shown that the Actuary expects in the year 1958–59 an increased expenditure of £10 million on benefits, but an increase in contributions by £23 million. Even allowing for the backlog, which I have already mentioned, remaining from 1954–56, an increase in expenditure next year by £10 million and contributions by £23 million seems very large.
Of course, I agree that there are future liabilities. Increased benefits mean increased contributions. I do not want to

make any accusation, or use words like "swindle" or anything of the kind. I only want the right hon. Gentleman or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to explain the matter a little further.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Wood): The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) asked first, about the possibility of the next quinquennial review. He will remember that there was a quinquennial review under the Industrial Injuries Act in 1954. No doubt, his mathematics are as good as mine and he will calculate that the next one will come in 1959. If he so calculates, he will be correct.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the relationship between the benefits and contributions which are proposed in this Bill, particularly in Clause 1, which refers to the first two Schedules. It may be that later in our consideration of this Bill we shall be considering in detail the proposals to increase the contributions and certain benefits.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that there was a disproportionate increase in the contribution to be paid by employees. In 1945, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was moving the Second Reading of the Industrial Injuries Act, 1946 he gave the undertaking that when contributions between employers and employees had been made to differ, action would be taken later to bring them together. In this Bill we do not propose to bring them together, but that surely is no reason for increasing the gap that existed before. We propose, in fact, that the gap should remain at 1d.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the finance of the Industrial Injuries Fund. I hope I understand it well enough to explain it to him. These proposed increases in rates in the Bill will add, in 1957–58, about £3½ million to the Fund. In a full year they will add nearly £23 million, and to that is added, as hon. Members know, the Exchequer supplement of one-fifth. Therefore, in a full year the additional income to the Fund will be £27½ million. The cost of the new benefits which are proposed in this Bill this year, 1957–58, will be £1½ million and in the first full year £10 million. It will be plain to all hon. Members that


thereafter the number of disablement pensioners and widows will increase. In 1979—twenty-two years hence—these increases in benefits will cost the Industrial Injuries Fund about £15 million, and the total cost of benefits and administration in the year 1979–80 will be increased to £81 million.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why the increase in the contribution rates was much greater than the 18 per cent. mentioned in the Government Actuary's Report. The reason is, as he estimated in paragraph 6 of this year's Report, that
"…in order to ensure the solvency of the Fund the rates of contribution prescribed by the 1954 Act would have to be raised by 18 per cent."
He then mentioned what had happened since then and said that there had been three new liabilities on the Fund. In addition, there are the liabilities which this Committee is to place on the Fund by increasing the benefits which appear in the Bill. That is why it was necessary to increase the contributions by the sum of 6d.
It has always been the intention of Parliament, I understand, that the Industrial injuries Fund should be self-supporting. If I may recapture the words of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry when the Industrial Injuries Act passed through the House, he said, and I think, rightly, that in the early years of the scheme—and those early years certainly include this present year, 1957—there should be an excess of income over expenditure, and this excess of income over expenditure must be held in reserve to meet the rising costs of benefits as various new commitments mature.
I think that a figure has already been mentioned in an earlier debate by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who said that the balance in the Industrial Injuries Fund at present is about £150 million. It has been estimated that if we are to keep the Industrial Injuries Fund solvent at the new rates of benefit, we must try to produce in the Fund about £500 million ultimately.
It is very remarkable—I certainly share any feeling of surprise which hon. Members may have about it—that proposals to decrease the contributions suggested in the Bill. although they may be very small

reductions, would have quite alarmingly large consequences, because any proposal to reduce contributions under the Bill would prevent the Fund from continuing to increase at some time in the 1970s, and that would mean that, in the early years of the next century, the Fund would be reduced to nothing. The fact remains that, if we dispense with a small amount of the proposed contribution now, it will be necessary to find a great deal more in the future.
I hope that I have said enough to point out to the right hon. Gentleman some of the financial facts about the Industrial Injuries Fund. I have told him that the next quinquennial review will be in 1959. No doubt, if there are any further detailed points upon which information is required, there will be a chance for hon. Members to raise them in the debates we shall possibly have later on the Schedules to the Bill.

Mr. T. Brown: Before we leave this Clause, I should like to put some important points to the Minister. I am very much afraid that due consideration has not been given to the amount of contributions now being paid by employees. I believe that sooner or later we shall have to consider a graduated contribution, though I know that I may not go into that now. During the debate on Wednesday last, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was asked whether any consultation had taken place between her Department and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress. I cannot envisage that the General Council would agree without hesitation to what the Government were proposing to do.
Over the weekend, I took the trouble to find out what an employee below the age of 21 pays from his wages. In one case I was startled to find that he pays every week £1 5s. 11d. Now it is proposed that he should pay more. I have here information about a young workman between the ages of 18 and 21, and his case is an example of the circumstances of thousands of young men and women engaged in industry. This particular individual—his pay number is 450, but I will not mention his name—had a total gross wage last Friday of £6 15s., to which was added bonus pay, to which he is entitled, of £1 7s. 2d., making a total gross sum of £8 3s.
Let us now examine the deductions, or stoppages as we call them in industry. They are as follow: miners' pension scheme, 1s. 6d.; permanent relief society, 9d.; welfare club, 2d.; baths, 4d.; trades union contribution, 1s. 7d.; supplementary insurance scheme, 4d.; the new contribution rate included in the Bill, 9s. 3d.; Income Tax, 12s. That employee, therefore, is paying from his wages every week £1 5s. 11d.
5.45 p.m.
We have been told that slowly, but surely, the Exchequer grant to these schemes is going down. We were told by the Minister that it would go up this year, but, slowly, responsibility for the National Insurance Scheme is now being shifted from the Exchequer to the workman. Nobody can deny that. An examination of the last few years' administration will reveal it. Has the Minister or his Department consulted the General Council of the Trades Union Congress to find out whether it has agreed upon the increased contributions?
I said last Wednesday that if we are to have a scheme which will meet with the approval of people at large we shall have to be prepared to pay. There is no escape from that. Nevertheless, I want the payments to be on an equitable basis, equitable for the man in the pit, in the mill or in the engineering shop, for the employer, and for the Exchequer. We all know that, during the early years of the scheme, the Exchequer paid over £100 million. Next year, according to the Minister's statement last Friday, the contribution will be approximately £90 million. It has been as low as £70 million.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that there is no misunderstanding about this. I think that the figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers relate to Exchequer contributions to the National Insurance Fund, whereas we are at the moment, as he appreciates, dealing with the Industrial Injuries Fund, where there is an automatic Exchequer supplementation in proportion to increases on the part of employee and employer. I hope that there is no misunderstanding, because we may well have to have other discussions on the relevant Clause relating to the National Insurance Fund.

Mr. Brown: I agree with the point the Minister is putting; he is speaking about the Exchequer grant to the Industrial Injuries Fund. I, however, am speaking about the all-in contributions which now have to be borne by the worker. There ought to be a closer examination of the contribution paid so that there should be equity in what the Exchequer, the employer, and the employee pay. I very much suspect that we are drifting into a situation where the full responsibility will be placed on the workers and employers, the Exchequer escaping scot-free. I ask the Minister to look most carefully into this aspect of the contributions as a whole.

Mr. William Blyton: I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the quinquennial review. When we were discussing the National Insurance Bill, 1946, upstairs, a provision was deliberately put into it so that there would be a quinquennial review and, at the time of that review, the House of Commons, after seeing the mistakes which occurred in the meantime, would have a chance of considering the whole matter in the light of experience gained. There is no denying it. In 1954, when he brought in the National Insurance Bill, 1954, the Minister "dished" the House of Commons by preventing it from having a review of the whole purpose of the Act, although that was the intention of the original Act in respect of the quinquennial review.
Many of us complained very forcibly, at that time, at not being allowed to discuss the reports and experience gained in the interval and, in the light of that, to frame the new Act accordingly. What perturbs me in the Bill is that widows who have no children and who are under the age of 50 are still to be left with only 20s. a week. Even with the fall in the value of money since 1946—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but the actual rates would be more suitably discussed under the Schedule.

Mr. Blyton: I looked at the Clause, Sir Gordon, which refers to the rates specified in the Schedule, and I thought that I could deal with that question on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Deputy-Chairman: We can discuss the general principle, but the actual rates will be discussed on the Schedule.

Mr. Blyton: Then I will leave my question until later. It is a point that needs to be considered.
From our discussions, we find that the pneumoconiosis cases have been omitted. In discussing the last Amendment, the Minister stated that they were reviewed last year. I must remind him that last year we had two Private Members' Bills and that although we are thankful for such small mercies as came our way last year we expressed our dissatisfaction that, while the Government had helped the fully incapacitated cases, thousands of partially incapacitated cases had been entirely ignored; they have had nothing up to date.
The Minister is wrong in thinking that we are dealing only with old men, because many men under 30 or 40 years of age were injured before the passing of the Act, and they are today married men with children. Their rate of partial compensation has not been reviewed, neither have they had any increase. They have the worst of both worlds. If they are unemployable at the partial compensation rate, they have lost their insurance stamps because they have been unemployed and they are now on National Assistance. Even then, the disregard relating to their compensation on National Assistance has not been altered. The 20s. disregard for the partially incapacitated man was fixed as long ago as 1946, and not even this has been altered.
I impress upon the Minister that these cases are entitled to be reviewed again and I assure him that we shall continue to agitate. If he cannot do it through the present Bill, let him bring in a one-Clause Bill and make the insurance companies pay. They got their premiums in the old days under the workmen's compensation Acts. The partially incapacitated people are entitled to benefit that is more in accord with the present-day value of money.

Dr. Horace King: I will not detain the Committee more than two minutes. It is a pleasure to hear the Parliamentary Secretary at the Dispatch Box, but I was alarmed by something that he said. We shall be discussing for quite a long time in the country the question of the relation of contributions

to benefits. From what the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention just now, I gather that the additional benefits that will come from the Bill are more than monetarily compensated for by the increased contributions.
I took it that in the first year the increased benefits under the Clause will amount to £1½ million and the contributors will pay about £17 million. Even next year, the full benefits under the Clause will amount only to £10 million, and still the money that goes into the Fund from the contributions will be more than the increased benefits that come out of the Fund. I ask the Minister, when replying, to tell us when the new increased benefits under the Clause will be greater than the contributions paid by the workers.

Mr. R. Williams: I find myself in a difficulty, on which, I hope, I shall be helped by the Minister, in understanding what principle the Government are following in the Clause. At one moment they assert that there must be such a clear relationship between the rate of contribution and the rate of benefit that the rate of contribution must be put at a figure which vastly exceeds the amount of the benefits that will be paid in anticipation of future liability. That I understand to be one of the arguments.
I understand, too, that the Government argue that we must be very careful in dealing with the Fund and allowing it to be raided for the payment of benefit to cases which are not covered by contributions. I understood that to be one of the reasons put forward by the Minister for refusing an Amendment.
When the Minister asked us to be careful in approaching the question, I assume that what he meant was that if we are not careful in approaching it we will give the impression to the electors that there is a large surplus in the Fund, that the surplus is increasing and that the Government are being niggardly in not providing for these deserving cases. In other words, the point of his argument was that the Fund is in a sense sacrosanct.
Is the Fund sacrosanct? We are dealing with a social service for those who are industrially injured. The difficulty facing the Minister and the Government is that they have to come before this House and suggest that there should be some difference of interest between those


who contribute and those who do not, between those who were injured before contributions were payable and those who were injured after contributions became payable. That affects the principles upon which the Clause rests.
We are in an astonishing position. While, in theory, if one forgets all about the individual cases of which one has experience, it could be argued that there is a distinction between the man who pays for benefit and one who does not, that distinction exists only in the minds of those who want to find reasons for not providing benefits and giving justice in these cases. From my experience, which is, perhaps, as intensive as that of any hon. Member in any part of the House, especially in a sphere in which there is a heavy incidence of accident rate, over a period of more than twenty years, I assure the Minister that it is blatant, arrant nonsense to suggest that there is any dispute between any sections of the workers and others whether they contribute or not and that the fullest support is given by those who contribute to the view that the justice which has been so long delayed should be given to those who are refused justice under the Clause and by the attitude of the Government.
The Minister is being openly hypocritical in his approach. He and his predecessors have raided the Fund for what to them seemed legitimate reasons, and it is right that they should do so. After all, if we are to accept the view put forward by the Minister that the scheme must be based upon a Fund, the vast accumulations in the Fund and in other funds become the basis of subsequent benefits. The Minister knows that in what he was saying he was talking rot. Because he, the Minister, has a large surplus and has taken future contingencies into account, can he come to the House and say that these are his proposals? Of course not. He dare not draft a Clause like Clause 1 without going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It has become absolutely clear that this is a matter of Government policy in the provision of a social service to injured people and that the amount of the stamp has very little to do with it. When it comes to a question of increased benefits, the Minister has to go cap in hand to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the matter is one of general Government

policy, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. That being so, it is astonishing that we should have to deal with a Clause which basically is unsound. It does not concede justice to those whom we have asked to be included in it and it is unsound because it carries too close a relationship between contributions and benefits and emphasises much too strongly and in far too confused a manner the significance of what actuarially may be considered to be right concerning a situation twenty or thirty years hence.
The Government have fallen down badly on the Clause. They should have considered the matter much more carefully before bringing it before the Committee.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. McKay: I should like to make a few comments on this Clause. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), I think that one of the outstanding features of these benefits is that those widows who were under 50 when their husbands died receive only 20s. per week, which is no more than they got in 1946. No alteration at all is proposed for these widows, who continue to receive 20s. a week, because they had no children and were under 50 years of age when they qualified.
The other point on which I want to comment is the question of contributions. I have been considering this problem a great deal. I have often listened to hon. Members speaking in this House on insurance matters and emphasising that the one great principle connected with this legislation is that there are equal contributions and equal benefits. Ordinary people, when reading expressions of opinion like that, will at least expect that, in practice, the whole of the contributors to these schemes will be paying the same. Not only that, but they will also have the impression that the cost will be the same. In fact, there is a difference. The ordinary man believes that when the contributions are equal the costs of the scheme will be equal.
Let us take the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. The employer is expected to pay so much in contributions. Take the case of a firm paying £1,000 a year in contributions to the Industrial Injuries Scheme. One would think, at first, that the cost to that firm


would be the £1,000 which it pays in contributions, but in practice that is not so. The cost to that company is not £1,000. Though it pays £1,000 in contributions, the company itself, as a consequence, pays £500 less in taxation. The general run of taxation on profits and other taxes comes to about 50 per cent., and if a firm pays contributions amounting to £1,000, it will get taxation relief amounting to £500. That is how it works out in actual practice, so there is no question at all of the cost being equal.
If there is anything that requires to be examined in the administration of the Act today it is the fact that the cost to different people is not the same, and that employers pay about 50 per cent. less than the amount shown in their insurance balance sheets. The whole thing needs putting on a proper footing, providing for equal payments where ordinary contributors are concerned. The poorest man in the country who does not pay Income Tax is paying his contributions today, while the highest paid are paying at least 2s. a week less. They are receiving a return in taxation relief on their contributions of about half the amount of the payments made, and if they are paying at the rate of 8s. 6d. in the £ they secure relief of about 2s. a week.
In that case, we find that men in the highest ranges of income are having their contributions reduced by about 2s. a week as against the payments made by some other contributors. The whole thing needs to be put on a proper basis, but I shall have something more to say about that when we come to the question of the Exchequer contribution.

Mr. Wood: May I say another word or two in answer to the points which hon. Members have raised?
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) mentioned the possibility of a graduated industrial injuries contribution. I do not know what other hon. Members feel about that, but I understood from his right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, East (Mr. Marquand) that he thought it would be a rather difficult operation. I myself feel that for a contribution of this kind a graduated scheme would be extremely difficult.
A number of hon. Members seem to have rather blurred the distinction

between the National Insurance Scheme and the Industrial Injuries Scheme, the latter of which was always intended to be entirely self-supporting. The Industrial Injuries Fund has always put the responsibility on the employer and the employee, with a certain proportion of their collective contributions added from the Exchequer.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring Mr. Blyton) finds it difficult to obtain opportunities to discuss the quinquennial review, but I imagine that with his ingenuity he will probably find an opportunity to do so. I have no doubt that he will make the best use of his opportunities today and tomorrow. I think that we do get opportunities from time to time, if not directly, to discuss matters that are based on the review, such as we are doing at present.
I do not think it would be in order if I discussed another topic which the hon. Member mentioned—the question of the partially incapacitated—because they do not appear in the Clause. The hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) asked me about the balance between the rates of contributions and benefits. I did not make it clear before, and I should like to do so now. Comparing like with like, the income is certainly greater than the expenses at the present time. In the first year, 1957–58, which is not a full year at the new rates, the extra income will be £3½ million and the extra expenses £1½ million.
The hon. Member asked me when, in fact, these two would meet. I think I gave him the answer when I said that, if the contributions were increased only to the extent suggested in the Amendment, then the money in the Fund would stop increasing in the 'seventies. Presumably, if the money in the Fund stops increasing and payments go upwards, the benefits will be less than balanced by income.

Dr. King: When the hon. Gentleman gives me a date about 1970, does that assume that the Treasury will have been paying in its own fraction, too?

Mr. Wood: It does indeed. It is assumed, as it must be, that the one-fifth Exchequer contribution will continue right into the future.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), and also the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, raised the question


of the widows receiving 20s. I do not know whether I should be in order if I went deeply into this question, but those widows are in the category of young, childless, fit widows and the Government have not changed this figure—

Mr. McKay: Since 1946.

Mr. Wood: Since 1948, and the National Insurance widow in the same category of young, childless and fit is today in the new concept of widowhood receiving no widow's pension.

Mr. Blyton: The 20s. of 1946 ought to be increased to match today's value of money.

Mr. Wood: That does not meet the other point that her contemporary, the National Insurance widow the widow whose rights lie under the National Insurance Scheme, is not receiving 20s. She is receiving nothing under the present concept.

Mr. McKay: For widows whose hushands were killed in mines or engineering shops there have always been special payments. Whatever was done for other widows, ordinary widows whose husbands died at 30 or 40, had no bearing on what was done when there was industrial injury, for then there was a capital amount of money paid to the widow regardless of age, and in the Act itself the principle was laid down that there should be some recognition of the widow who was made a widow because of an industrial accident. That principle was established and is still there. The amount has remained the same. If it is not right, why not abolish it altogether?

Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. That is the reason why the widow whom he has in mind receives the 20s. pension. She, I repeat, must be compared with the widow under the National Insurance Scheme who is not receiving any pension at all. That is the reason the 20s. pension is not increased.

Mr. McKay: It is not the same thing at all.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: When we refer to a review under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act it is not altogether for financial

reasons. The only opportunities we have had since 1948 of considering that Act is when Bills of this kind have come up. There are many things affecting the structure of the Act itself, assessments for one, of which we should certainly like a comprehensive review so that we could go into all these matters and discuss not merely the financial aspects. If my memory serves me right, that Section of the Act which refers to a comprehensive review has never yet been implemented.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(HIGHER RATES, ETC., OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS UNDER NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1946.)

Mr. Finch: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the beginning to insert:
(1) As from the appointed day, subsection (2) of section seventy-two of the National Insurance Act, 1946 (which in certain cases substitutes a death grant of ten pounds for the death grant of twenty pounds otherwise provided by that Act) shall be amended by substituting for the words "ten pounds" the words "fifteen pounds".
This Amendment seeks to increase the death grant in certain cases. It is a simple Amendment. It has not much complexity about it. I hope, therefore, we may dispose of it in a very short time.
At the present time there are two classes of case under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. Death grant is payable for men under 55 and for women under 50 at 5th July, 1947, which was the appointed day. In those cases the death grant payable is £20. The Bill seeks to increase that to £25. There is another class of death grant, for men who are between 55 and 65 and women who are between 50 and 60 at the appointed day. That death grant is £10. There is nothing in the Bill which seeks to increase that amount.
6.15 p.m.
I would specially draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this. I cannot understand this disparity of treatment. It seems to me not to be justified. I cannot imagine the Government are serious in raising the amount of grant to the one set of persons and not to the other. I think this must be due to an oversight. If it is not, I cannot understand it.

Miss Pitt: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the hon. Gentleman straight away, for that may make any further discussion unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman has overlooked that we have provided for an increase for those people who were within ten years of retirement age in July, 1948. True, it is not in Part II of the Fourth Schedule, but if he will look at the Fifth Schedule, line 32 of page 16 of the Bill, he will find that we propose to amend Section 72 of the 1946 Act, which relates specifically to death grant payable to late-age entrants, and increase the grant from £10 to £12 10s.—in other words, exactly in proportion to the increase proposed for the full standard rate. I hope that in these circumstances the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. B. Taylor: I think my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the Amendment. We could not understand the Clause as it stood. After all, this Bill has been a hurried job. It was first debated only last week, and it is possible we have not caught up all the points yet. We are grateful for what the hon. Lady has said, and I should think that on the assurance she has given us my hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Finch: I beg to ask leave to with- draw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end to insert:
Provided that—

(a) where it appears to the Minister expedient to do so in order to maintain the purchasing power of benefit he may by order direct that for a period to be specified in the order the rates and amounts of benefit specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall be increased to such extent as may be set out in the said order;
(b) any order made by the Minister as aforesaid shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made;
(c) the power conferred by this subsection to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and no such order shall have effect until it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

This Amendment is really self- explanatory. Our aim is to protect old- age pensioners and the other recipients of benefits enumerated in the Fourth Schedule from the effects of continuing inflation. I think hon. Members in all

parts of the House realise that the real victims of inflation are not so much those who are in work but those who are living on fixed incomes, and particularly the pensioners.
I have the advantage of being the hon. Member who has most recently had contact with the electorate, although hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, I am sure, from their experience of their constituencies will know perfectly well what a tremendous burden has been thrown on those in retirement by the perpetual depreciation in the value of money. We all hope that the Government's plans for arresting inflation will succeed, but lest they should fail, we seek by this Amendment to provide machinery whereby the level of benefits can be kept abreast of the level of prices without the need for further legislation.
I see one or two hon. Members present who I know can recall the debates we had in the House of Commons many years ago on the Beveridge Report. It was emphasised in that Report, and it was accepted by hon. Members in all parts of the House at that time, that the Beveridge proposals were based on a subsistence level. They could operate only on the supposition that prices remained reasonably steady. It was accepted, either expressly or implied, on both sides of the House in those days that the benefits which were then envisaged should be tied to the cost of living in one way or another. We are asking that the same principle should be accepted today, and we seek to provide through the Amendment the most suitable machinery that we can devise.
The last occasion when I had the privilege of moving an Amendment touching the old-age pensioners was on Sunday, 3rd September, 1939. It was about an hour after the declaration of war. I then moved an Amendment designed to protect the position of old-age pensioners who might also qualify for dependant's pension due to the loss of a son in the war. On that occasion, I am happy to recollect, rather to my surprise the Amendment was accepted. I hope that the Minister now in charge of these matters will show himself no less forthcoming than his predecessor in 1939.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Can the hon. and learned Member say whether this would need some modification of the existing scheme of the National Insurance


Acts, in the sense that it would need provision for variation of contributions or of Exchequer contribution or something of that nature?

Mr. Foot: It might involve some variation in contributions and, possibly, some increase in Exchequer contribution, but that is not a matter with which we can deal in the Amendment. All that I seek to do in the Amendment is to establish the principle that benefit should be linked with the cost of living.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that the case for the Amendment is well known to both sides of the Committee. I am sure the Minister would agree that since the pension was last raised its value has fallen by about 4s. in the £ and that part of the proposed 10s. is designed to bring back the purchasing power of the pension. We on this side of the Committee feel that it is cumbersome and improper that every time the value of pension is reduced by inflation we have to go through an elaborate procedure in a Bill of this kind. We believe that provision for automatic adjustment should be made in the Bill by which pension value can be permanently maintained. That is why, in the Amendment, we are concerned to find a mechanism to raise automatically the value of pensions in the event of purchasing power being reduced by inflation.
We appreciate that the Government may not be willing to accept our longer-term schemes, but we find it difficult to believe that they would not be prepared to accept this kind of automatic adjustment to the pension. We cannot see why it was not done some time ago. We think that this is one of the Amendments which the Minister can accept with relative ease.
I am sure we all agree that one of the things that is undesirable is that this question should be one of argument and of politics. If we can write into the Bill an understanding by which pension is automatically adjusted in this way, it is not fair for hon. Members opposite to ask on this Clause questions about contributions. We can raise that point on the next Clause. We are concerned solely here with the principle that this provision should be written into the Bill and that the Governement should be able to carry

it out by Order in Council, provided that it is approved by both Houses. That is our sole intention in moving the Amendment.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I support the Amendment and hope that the Minister will accept it.
During the past two-and-a-half years the old-age pensioners have been the worst victims of inflation. In 1955 the pension was raised to £2 a week, and during that period, on the Minister's own admission in this Chamber just before the Recess, the pension was worth in purchasing power only £1 15s. 10d. To people on a pension of £2 a week, a loss of 4s. 2d. a week is considerable. A person earning £30 or £20, or even £15 or £12, may not miss so much 4s. 2d. a week, but this is a big loss to a pensioner on £2 per week.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) that if the Minister accepts the Amendment it will protect the old-age pensioner from inflation. It will stop the hardship to old-age pensioners on the benefit rates when they lose purchasing power and will lead to a good deal of satisfaction among the people. If the cost of food and clothing and of rent and electricity increases, the new rate will lose its value. The Amendment would provide against that, and I am sure that it would be acceptable to many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, for should the cost of living continue to rise, the new benefits would be increased automatically to give them full purchasing power. This amendment will protect old-age pensioners from inflation.

Dame Irene Ward: I am extremely interested in the Amendment because, for a very long time, I have tried to do my best to cope with this difficult problem about which all of us feel very strongly in relation to those who draw old-age pensions and those who are living on small fixed incomes. Whether the method proposed in the Amendment is an appropriate way of dealing with the problem is, of course, quite another matter, but there is a point which I must put, particularly after hearing the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) moving the Amendment. I was not surprised to find that it was not


moved by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) although his name heads it on the Order Paper.
I, too, very well remember the events of 1939. In view of what has been said, I want to ask why in 1951, after a very heavy rise in the cost of living, it was found impossible by hon. and right hon. Members opposite to give even a modest increase of pension to people who drew retirement pensions after 1st October, 1951. It is very easy to put forward a proposal of this kind from the Opposition benches, but it is quite contrary to the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they were sitting on the Government benches. That must be borne in mind.
I have tried to attend every debate that has been held in this Chamber on old-age pensions, on retirement pensions, and on the condition of those who are living on small fixed incomes. I am thrilled, of course, that hon. and right hon. Members opposite should now take a view entirely different from that which they took in 1951. I do not know how far I am in order, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was allowed to interrupt and ask a question, perhaps I might be allowed to ask how it is intended to finance this proposal. That is very pertinent to the Amendment.
6.30 p.m.
I want to have this on the record; indeed, I have been longing to have it on the record for a long time. In the Budget of 1951, presumably because there was no money in the kitty and also presumably because right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were responsible at the time for the finance of the country, were not prepared to ask the rest of the community to finance the aged by increased contributions, far from making this all-embracing recommendation, the proposal was that there should be a differentiation between the two sections of the community in respect of retirement pensions. In other words, those who were already drawing retirement pensions were to have their pensions increased by a very modest sum having regard to the heavy rise in the cost of living. If I remember rightly, it was 4s., raising the original basic pension from 26s. to 30s. On the other hand, all old people who would become due

for retirement pensions after 1st October, 1951, had to remain on the old basic pension.
I want a definite guarantee from the Front Bench opposite. I am not interested in back benchers—[An HON. MEMBER: "So say all of us."] I know what a lot of trouble I give my own Front Bench. When it comes down to a matter of this kind, I think that an Amendment of this importance should have been moved, but by a Front Bench speaker opposite. The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, who is an old friend of mine and against whom I have nothing personal, is not sitting on the Front Bench. Neither is the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). Though I would not mind prophesying that at some time in the future the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich may sit on the Front Bench, I am not so sure about the hon. Member for Coventry, East. But if this Amendment is a serious one, why was it not moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East, whose name is at the head of the Amendment?
If this suggestion is to be seriously discussed, it must be discussed between Front Benchers. Of course, when the next General Election comes along. I may not be back here. Yet if I am back here, and if by any unfortunate chance those on the Front Opposition Bench were sitting on the Treasury Bench, I would not have any faith either in their ability or in their promises to implement the kind of argument they are putting forward today. I have never thought it fair to play politics with the lives of old people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—so I want to have this on the record.
I want to know specifically what proposals there are to finance this suggestion. I happened to notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition now seems to think that the cost of living will fall. I presume he thinks that if he were in power the cost of living would fall further, so he would be giving nothing to the old-age pensioners by proposing this Amendment.
However I want a great deal more information. I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend, speaking from our Front Bench on this side of the Committee, will confirm the mean treatment handed out


by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1951 just before the General Election.

Mr. George Thomas: That was why we did it.

Dame Irene Ward: That is exactly the point. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite knew that the General Election was coming along, so they carefully provided a small increase of pension for those who were drawing retirement pensions, and they hoped that nobody would notice that they had excluded everybody else. That was what happened. Then the Leader of the Opposition chose to go to the country because there was no money in the kitty. I am not suggesting that hon. Gentlemen opposite are inhuman, but that was the reason why they could not meet the case for the retirement pensioners.
I do not always agree with my Minister, and certainly I do not agree with my Government's treatment of those living on small fixed incomes. What I do know is that when they produce a scheme the money is in the kitty to meet it. Therefore, I would much rather have the retirement pensioners in the hands of my Minister than in the hands of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who could not do a single thing to meet the unfortunate and unhappy position of retirement pensioners when they were sitting on the Treasury Bench and forming the Government.

Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is never at her best when she pulls her punches, and she has been spending the time of the Committee in making a lot of noise but contributing very little that was constructive to this Amendment. She talked about playing politics. The hon. Lady was playing politics with the old people throughout her speech. She was hoping to be able to create a little prejudice outside, and I do not propose to follow her along those lines. I wish to answer only one of her arguments, which was that it is easy for somebody in opposition to produce an argument of this kind. It is significant that no such proposal came forward when her party was in opposition.

Dame Irene Ward: It will be within the recollection of the Committee that supplementary pensions, now embodied

in National Assistance, which provided helpful assistance to those on the lowest level of incomes, came about by the setting up of a committee at the suggestion and under the direction and guidance of the late Neville Chamberlain, and that supplementary pensions stemmed from the action taken by the Government over which he presided.

Mr. Thomas: The more opportunity the hon. Lady gets, the more she puts her foot in it. She is referring to that part of our social welfare service which rests entirely upon a means test—

Dame Irene Ward: No, no.

Mr. Thomas: Yes, it does. Nobody in this country gets supplementary assistance without first proving their poverty, and, in certain circumstances, applicants have to produce their insurance papers.
Now, Sir William, if I may turn to the argument and bring the Committee back to the Amendment, I suggest that there are two good reasons why it should be accepted. Number one: plenty of people pay lip-service to taking the question of retirement pensions out of party politics, and this Amendment could well be a means of so doing. After all, if the pension were automatically linked to the cost of living, there would be automatic attention to the needs of the old folk, and there would be less opportunity for people to press their claims, and less need for them so to do in this House. I believe that until retirement pensions are pegged to the cost of living they are bound to be a matter of major controversy. There is a great gap between us on our approach to the social welfare service.
The second reason why I believe this Amendment should be carried is the human consideration of the old folk. Obviously they are tied to the tail of inflationary movement. They are bound to be the last people to receive an increase in income. It is clear that unless a Measure of this sort is accepted by the Government, then the old folk will be faced in the next twelve months with the serious crisis of seeing their pension dwindle away. I am confident that the motives of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House are the same. We all want to protect our old folk from the harshness of inflation. But is there anyone on either side who can say to the old-age pensioners, "The increase which


you will receive in January next is guaranteed to hold its value through the years"? If we cannot say that, it is hard lines for the old people and we are in honour bound to do something to protect them, because the new figures will give them not even a bare subsistence level.
No Minister of National Insurance has ever pretended that the retirement pension rate is enough for a person to live on. We say that it is not even a basic amount on which they can live. I believe that the hon. Lady has said the same. There are millions of old-age people who have to live on it. There are millions who have only the gifts—I will not say charity—of their children along with the basic retirement pension. These people are faced with a major crisis every time a basic commodity increases in price. Now that the House is giving its time and attention to this question, we should do the job properly and protect the old people. We should ensure that the pension increase shall be maintained so that a year from today we shall be able to say that the increase has not lost ground in any way, however much the rest of the economy is being strained or dealt with by those in employment. We should ensure that we are strong enough and able enough to protect the weaker members of our community from the blizzards which have affected our economy in recent years.

Mr. Philip Bell: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has done his best to keep politics out of the debate. He always speaks with great eloquence and has a very good platform, but it is not quite good enough to leave politics and economics out.
This is a very serious Amendment indeed. It is impossible for us, without the advantage of studied comment, figures and statistics from the Opposition benches, to accept the Amendment on the ground that we are all very fond of our parents. When the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) talked about the Beveridge Report he missed out economy. He knows as well as anybody that when that Report was issued it was thought that the value of money would be stabilised. Why did he not tell us at the time that it was supposed to be a funded scheme and that it was not supposed to carry late entrants who

would receive the full pension but not make actuarial contributions? It was that step which put this Fund in an unstable position.
It is easy enough to say, "Let us link the pension with the rise in the cost of living." The rise in the cost of living will not be an inflation that 2s. here or 1s. there will put right. It may smash us. We have seen inflation reach the stage in Europe where it cannot be put right by a contribution here or a contribution there. The battle is against inflation, and it is a defeatist policy to submit an Amendment which is of deep and serious consequence without having calculated what the cost of it will be and to bring it forward on the basis that inflation is with us for ever. If inflation is with us for ever, we need not bother about 2s. or 3s. in extra contributions. We will be facing a number of difficulties worse than that.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with this? We want to conquer inflation, but this Amendment seeks to do something much more modest, and that is to ensure that, while we are conquering inflation, old people do not suffer as a result. I do not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Does he not agree that the responsibility for conquering inflation is on those who can earn their living? While we are conquering inflation, decency demands that we should protect the old people from the consequences of our acts.

Mr. Bell: "We" is the fallacy behind the argument. It is not the present generation, but future generations who will do it. It is easy enough to pay money out when we are not footing the bill, but we have to remember the cumulative effect in the future of late entrants. The increase which is proposed now will be at the expense of a future generation. The Amendment, standing isolated like this, never takes the reverse side of the penny and says, "If the cost of living should fall, then the pension should fall." It is not a well-balanced Amendment. It is not part of a comprehensive scheme such as we all want the Government to bring in. We do not want a tinkering Amendment which, except for the observations of the hon. Member, I would have had


suspicions had a political content, but in view of his speech I will not vent those suspicions.

Dr. King: I should have thought that, in spite of what the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) has said, this was an Amendment which the Government might have accepted, or that, at any rate, the principle behind it might have been accepted by every member of the Committee except the hon. and learned Member.
Many people are saying that we should leave old-age pensions out of politics. I do not believe that that is possible. There are two aspects to the old-age pension question. One is the amount of the pension and the other the financing of it. On those questions, there is likely to be for quite a long time great differences of opinion between the two major political parties. While that is true, it is the agreed view of both sides of the Committee that whatever pensions we agree on should be adjusted as quickly as possible to the rise in the cost of living. The Government from time to time work towards that end.
I do not think that we should take a defeatist view about inflation. I am willing to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that if we have a raging, tearing inflation then the country is ruined; but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would be the last to say that if we were faced with the ruin of inflation, the first people we should put into the battle should be the old folk who should be the first to suffer. We are trying in this Committee to devise the best and swiftest way of adjusting the pensions to the rise in the cost of living. I must confess that I have never understood why it takes so long. Even though we have made provision in this Bill, it will take us nearly three months. I have never understood why we could not give new values to the vouchers which already exist in the pensions scheme.
However, we are assured by the Minister that it does take all this time, that the utmost that the Amendment would do would be to save the time between a Statutory Instrument and a Bill—I reckon that time as three or four weeks—and that if we proceeded by means of a Statutory Instrument instead of the long process of a Bill, we should lose the luxury of being able to amend

the Bill. From our previous experience of Bills and of the present Minister, the chances of our amending this Bill are very small.
By means of our Amendment, we should get a much quicker gearing up of the pension towards the value which the whole Committee wants it to approach. I hope the Minister will address himself to this proposal as a very serious attempt to do what all of us have very much in mind, to say to the old-age pensioner, "While you may fight about the amount of the pension, the one thing we shall not let you do in future is to go through the degrading, humiliating procedure of having time and time again to say to the House of Commons that the pension already conceded has shrunk in value and that you must ask for an increase."

Sir Patrick Spens: This is a very attractive idea put forward in a very attractive way, but it would be an absolute denial of the possibility of success by the Government in dealing with inflation if such a provision were put into an Act of Parliament. The proposal is based on the view that inflation is going on and that we shall have to have machinery to deal frequently and from time to time with increasing inflation. What is the good of the Government making every endeavour to defeat inflation if we put into an Act a provision which says that the position will be absolutely hopeless and we shall require machinery which will have to be used frequently and very quickly to deal with the pensions difficulty?
I hope the Government will have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment but will rely on the very firm hope that real measures will be able to defeat inflation. If inflation cannot be defeated, further legislation on behalf of pensioners will be necessary, but to insert a provision which amounts to an admission that inflation cannot be defeated would be an absolute contradiction of everything for which the Conservative Party stands.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are always very keen to pay tributes to efforts to ease the lot of the unfortunate, particularly if they happen to be the elderly unfortunate, but when it comes to putting forward practical proposals they invariably say, "We hope the Government will


have nothing whatever to do with this." We have had one or two such speeches today, together with a considerable voicing of the fear that our proposal would lead to further inflation.
I support the proposal because it is an anti-inflationary move. It is anti-inflationary from the only point of view that really matters in this House or outside, and that is the point of view of the old people themselves. Inflation comes along, and we seek to insulate them from it. It may be said that that is a ridiculous way to look at inflation, but I believe that we have no right morally to look at it from any other point of view. So long as it is possible for any other section of the community to insulate itself wholly or partially from inflation, so long as other people can by wage claims or by having their wages arranged on a sliding scale, coupled with the cost of living, insulate themselves from inflation, so long as there is anyone left in the country who can insulate himself to any extent at all from inflation, then the old people should also be put in that position. What is proposed would mean a very simple and quick method of doing it, and if inflation ended tomorrow, so would what we propose end tomorrow. There is no excuse for this scheme or a similar one not being seriously considered by the Government.
I believe—all who have studied the question do—that the burden of this proposal, like the burden of all pensions, falls on people who are in work, and not only upon people in the far distant future. It is true that the burden increases in the far distant future, but there is nevertheless some burden in the present. My hon. Friends and I believe—we are prepared, if need be, to tie ourselves to this wagon—that the people of this country will be prepared to bear the burden when the matter is put to them properly. All we ask is that the Government should provide some machinery capable of insulating the old people as far as possible from the ill effects of inflation. We believe this can be done by the machinery we have suggested, and we earnestly hope that the Government will consider it.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: As has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for. Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), this is a most attractive proposal, and it is obviously something which would attract the

admiration and support of old-age pensioners. However, in the House of Commons we have to do something more than secure support from any sectional interest. We have to think of proposals from the point of view of the interests of the country and whether the country can proceed with them without injuring itself.
The case which has been put forward by the Opposition is not strong enough, for the reasons which have been advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend and also my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell). However one argues, one cannot possibly argue an increase in pensions, wages or anything else unless it is matched by an increase in productivity. That is one of the fundamental facts which we have to face today. If one automatically increases pensions by a sum which will mean the printing of notes to the value of about £100 million a year and it is not matched by an increase in productivity, inflation will continue. There is no argument against that. It is one of the economic facts of life we have to face.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how productivity has been increased in relation to the measure of assistance which is to be given to old-age pensioners?

Mr. Cooper: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill. The Bill is in two parts. The first part provides for an increase in pension. Since any increase in pension which is not matched by an increase in production or savings or a withdrawal of purchasing power would be inflationary, there is another part to the Bill which provides for an increase in contribution. Thus we have a matching up. I should have thought that this was so elementary as to be beneath the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. E. G. Willis: How does the argument apply to war pensions, which are also being raised?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Cooper: There are certain obligations the country has to bear—

Mr. Willis: That is precisely the point of this Amendment.

Mr. Cooper: War pensions and things of that description are not covered by any


insurance scheme, but will have to be covered in due course by increases in taxation. If we could only rid our minds of the idea that anything in this country is free, we should do a lot better.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said that we have to insulate the old-age pensioners against the effects of inflation while we are still fighting a battle against it. That is precisely the argument which trade union leaders have been advancing during the last 12 years. If during the fight against inflation the whole of the nation is to be insulated against the effects of inflation, what interest is it to anyone in the country to try to fight this enemy? This is a time when we have to exercise some restraint in our demands on the economy.
We should all like to see this matter taken out of party politics and pensions, as it were, pegged to the cost of living. But the idea put forward by hon. Members opposite is half-baked. They have not made a single suggestion on how this idea is to be financed. They have not even thought of the desirability of matching it with productivity. In fact, the more one listens to the arguments of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite the more one is forced to the conclusion that all they wish to see is a continuance of inflation in this country.

Mr. John Diamond: I hope the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) will not mind a back-bencher from this side of the Committee contributing to the discussion or me saying that, although she was not interested in what is being said by hon. Members on the back benches on this side of the Committee, we are very interested indeed in what she said.
The hon. Lady made two important points. She thought that this matter ought to be taken out of party politics. So do I, and so, I think, do most of my hon. Friends. The hon. Lady thought the cost ought to be considered. So do I. I should have thought the Government would say that the figure they are at present suggesting is the correct one. I assume they would say it is neither too large nor too small. I assume, therefore, that it would be only right for them to say that this is the proportion of the national income which the economy can spare today for the old folk. If that be

so, they would surely be deceiving themselves and misleading the Committee were they to refuse to accept the Amendment which has the effect of keeping that proportion constant.
What my hon. and learned Friend is anxious to do, and I am anxious to support him, is to see that this share, which by introducing the figure the Government are by implication calling a fair share, is maintained. If that fair share can be maintained by the Government accepting this Amendment, it would have the desirable effect of making it unnecessary for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to draw the attention of the public from time to time to the fact that the proportion has altered and is therefore no longer right.
We are most anxious to have this matter withdrawn from political discussion, and I am sure that the Government are too. It is a short time since I found myself having to draw attention to it during the by-election at Gloucester. What did the Prime Minister do? He sent a message to the Conservative candidate at that by-election notifying him—and therefore the electors of Gloucester—that this very question of pensions was under review. The House was in recess at the time and the right hon. Gentleman did not wait to inform the House of Commons; he gave the information to the electors of Gloucester. That was very unfortunate for the right hon. Gentleman's supporters at Gloucester, because so many of them took the view that it was a wholly improper thing to do at a by-election, to make a vague suggestion—

Mr. John Hall: I believe that an announcement was made on this point before the House rose for the Summer Recess.

Mr. William Ross: No, not at all; that is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Diamond: I cannot speak at first hand about what may have been said in this House before the Recess. All I can say is that it was regarded as a most improper intervention by thousands of old-age pensioners all over the country and from all sorts of areas, many of whom took the opportunity of writing to me to say so.
We are all agreed that we want this matter taken out of the realm of party


politics, and the way to do it is to prevent any hon. Member from being able to point to the cost-of-living index and saying, "That was a fair share, but it is no longer a fair share." I hope, therefore, that the Government will be anxious to accept this Amendment from that point of view.
I do not think the Government can refuse to accept the Amendment on the ground of cost. This is only a safeguarding Amendment. It will have an effect only if the cost of living goes up and inflation increases. During the short time I have been back as a Member of this House I have heard speech after speech from the Government about their determination to keep the cost of living stable and to introduce every measure they think necessary—including keeping down wages and interfering with negotiations for wage fixing—to keep the cost of living stationary. I hope that we shall be told how much it would cost were this Amendment introduced. If the Minister will tell us how much in his view the cost of living is going up and over what period, we shall be able to see whether there is anything involved.
I have been almost convinced by the Government that our cost of living is for all practical purposes under control—so long as we keep the same right hon. Gentlemen on the same Front Benches—so there is no need to worry on the score of cost. It has been well said that the Amendment provides for an increase but not for a decrease. I should be prepared to accept an Amendment if, as I am sure will prove to be the case, the Minister says, "We cannot accept the wording as it is, but if there is a variation to provide both up and down, we shall be only too glad to accept it." That is a minor variation which would satisfy many hon. Members on this side of the Committee.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: Will the hon. Member answer this question before he leaves that point? Suppose this Amendment had been part of the law before the present Bill was brought forward. The hon. Member appreciates, does he not, that it would not have permitted the present proposed increases to take place, because those increases have gone beyond the rise in the cost of living?

Mr. Diamond: That is hardly a question it is a statement of a point of view.

I do not accept it, and I am sure that we shall be glad to listen to the hon. and gallant Member expounding it a little more fully after I have finished my speech and when he can give us the benefit of his views about this Amendment.
In my opinion, the dominant reason is not related to the financial side or the political aspect. It is a simple human consideration. I apologise for mentioning Gloucester once more and the by-election there. But what is brought home to one on entering the homes of old folk is the feeling of these old folk, not only that they are not getting sufficient to make ends meet, but, even more important, in many cases they are not getting a fair deal from the community to which they have given everything and the whole of their working lives.
As we know, there is almost a complete lack of ability on the part of the old people to make felt their point of view. Those who have read the report on loneliness know that that is the greatest hardship suffered by the old folk. They are often living alone and just putting up with it. It is bad enough having to put up with it and not being able to make ends meet, but it is much worse knowing one has done everything one can and the country has forgotten you, and you have become a discarded and unwanted person. There is no way in which that can be overcome more rapidly than by accepting an Amendment on these lines. I hope that, on all these considerations, the Government will say something encouraging to us.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: It is with particular pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), whose closest neighbour I am, not having had the opportunity of doing so before.
May I take up a point which he made about the increase in pensions? He did not entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) when he said that the present proposed increase in pension had gone beyond the increase in the cost of living. I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that it has risen to the tune of about 12s. in real terms, so that old-age pensioners are to


that extent better off than they would have been if this Amendment had been on the Statute Book before.

Mr. Hunter: The hon. Member has said that the value has gone up by 12s., but the pension increase is only 10s.

Mr. Kershaw: I should have added to make myself clear, and I apologise for not making it clear—since right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were last responsible for the management of our affairs.
I have not yet heard any answer to the proposition put several times from this side of the Committee that if the cost of living is not to go up—and we have it on the authority of the Leader of the Opposition that it will not—then there is no point in the Amendment because it does nothing for the old people. If the cost of living is going up, then it is axiomatic that tying anything to the cost of living is the best way to ensure that it continues to rise at an ever-increasing pace, and if it does that the benefit the old people will receive by getting a few extra shillings will very soon disappear in the atomic explosion of inflation which will sweep this country to ruin very quickly.

Dr. King: Will the hon. Member explain to the House why, since for the last ten years we have not tied the old-age pension to any rise in the cost of living, that has not prevented any inflation?

Mr. Kershaw: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman expects me to advance now into an economic argument. I should have thought that that argument was quite different from the one before us and was not a very difficult one to counter. I prefer to continue to discuss this Amendment rather than deploy too soon my Budget speech before the Committee.
I cannot agree either with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) that one would be able to take the old-age pension or retirement pension out of politics by adopting this Amendment. It was indeed implicit in his own speech, because at one time the hon. Gentleman was arguing that the pension we have today is insufficient. I think that is common ground in the arguments of hon. Members opposite, that it is only a subsistence pension and not enough,

and that people are demanding something more. If that is so, there is still controversy between the two sides of the Committee, because clearly, whether the pension depends on the cost of living rising or whether it does not, the basis of the argument has not been altered at all, namely, whether it should be a pension of this size or whether it should be something basically different.
We have the experience of the building workers' trade at the present time. They have wages largely related to automatic cost-of-living rises, but that has not prevented very large demands for increased wages being put in. When the argument was put, "Ah, but you have got a cost-of-living adjustment built into it by the arrangement for wages in the building industry", the reply which Sir Richard Coppock gave was that that was only for small rises in the cost of living and that when we get a large rise in the cost of living we want a new arrangement altogether. Not on that basis, therefore, shall we take it out of political controversy; on the one hand, it will be said that the rise in pensions should be more in relation to the cost of living, and on the other hand we shall be quarrelling as to whether the basis for the old-age pension is correct or not. I join with hon. Members on this side of the Committee in saying that the cure for this anxiety about inflation is not to tie the pension to the cost of living but to cure inflation, which will give the old-age pensioners honest money and the basic value they ought to have.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I am surprised at the amazing range of the arguments which we have had from hon. Members opposite in opposition to the Amendment. Indeed, I began to wonder whether the Amendment they have been discussing was the same Amendment that I had been looking at.
We had the historical reference of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who succeeded in making a speech without mentioning the Amendment. Then we had, surprisingly enough, a reference to the whole breakdown of the national economy which would follow automatically if this Amendment were enacted. Do hon. Members opposite really think that is


true? The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) said that psychologically it was wrong—that this was the best way to ensure that inflation would go on. Does he remember the National Assistance Act, under which power is given to the Minister by regulation to increase the rates of benefit? Does he tell us that inflation has continued because that power exists in that Act, as, indeed, it may in many others? I think that the arguments which we have had from hon. Members opposite—particularly that of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth—are the most puerile we have heard for a very long time. Has the right hon. and learned Member really read the Amendment?

Sir P. Spens: Surely the hon. Gentleman can understand that when every Minister of Her Majesty's Government is taking every step possible to stop inflation—and that is the primary object of the Government—for the Government then to put into an Act of Parliament any Clause, no matter what it is, which presupposes that inflation will go on is an absolute admission on the part of the Government that their policy will fail.

Mr. Ross: The logic of that is that we should not have had the Bill at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has allowed himself to be led into such a bad case that he is going much further and deeper than he wants to. I want him and other hon. Members opposite to read the Amendment. I do not know whether hon. Members from England and Wales read Amendments, but we who sit on the Scottish Grand Committee usually do. It has been said, "This thing is automatically going to break the Government and the country." If I have an argument about this Amendment, it is this. It does not do what hon. Members opposite appear to think it does. It says:
Where it appears to the Minister expedient to do so…
It is entirely up to the Minister. It does not finish there; it says further:
in order to maintain the purchasing power of benefits he may…
There is nothing automatic about that. Finally, in regard to the rates and amounts of benefit, the Amendment says:
shall be increased to such extent as may be set out in the said Order.
Those are the actual words of the Amendment. Does any hon. Member

suggest that they support the argument about the economy of the country being broken by inflation? If so, he shows very little confidence in the Minister.
What are the facts? The Minister will remember, if anyone does, that three years ago, almost to the very month, the last announcement was made of increases in the benefits of old-age pensions. That was at the end of 1954. The increases did not come into operation until about four months later, by which time part of the increased purchasing power had been swallowed up. That has gone on month by month. We now seek to give power to the Minister speedily to remedy hardship. That is all. He will be able to get round the necessity for a special Act of Parliament to increase the amount of pensions.
May I remind the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South that power already exists for the Minister, on the advice of the National Assistance Board, to take speedy action about National Assistance Regulations. We are asking that the same power of speedy action should be given to the Minister about retirement pensions. I hope that Government supporters will not try to think of further fantastic reasons for opposing the Amendment. Let them think of what the old-age pensioners have been suffering in the last twelve months. Let them give this power to the Minister speedily to remedy the position when the sense of the House of Commons is in favour of his doing so.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that this is not a very effective Amendment. If it had been included in the National Insurance Act, 1946, the benefits would not have been put up by our predecessors until 1951, because it would have depended entirely upon whether the Minister thought that the purchasing value of the benefits had fallen.
My personal view is that the House of Commons should not delegate legislation on important questions such as the purchasing power of benefits in the National Insurance Scheme. We have done it by introducing Bills, altering the purchasing value from the old 1948 standard, which was adopted by our predecessors in 1951, first to the 1946 standard and now to a standard higher than


that of 1946. The Opposition now ask us to put the clock back and take away the power of Parliament to amend any proposal made by the Government in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. It would be done by an Order, which cannot be amended.

Mr. Foot: That does not cut out further legislation. The Amendment proposes that a temporary increase can be brought in without legislation.

Mr. Turton: We are all glad to hear the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) again presenting his legalistic arguments to us, but his argument does not help his case. We all want to help the pension scheme. It is not a matter which divides the parties. If we intend to rely on legislation, let us stick to it. We shall not do any good by having a Statutory Instrument, which some Government has to draft. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise the truth of that, from their own history from 1946 to 1951. It is not easy to get Governments to make Orders, and the process would not be any quicker by delegated legislation than by Act of Parliament. I would much rather we retained the power of Parliament to look at these matters, both sides co-operating to get the necessary Measures passed quickly.
The present Bill may take a week. Where I want the Government to cut down is in the time taken to bring an Act into operation. We are making tremendous advances in the speed of operating changes of benefits. When the benefits were changed in 1951 there was an announcement, if I remember rightly, in April. The benefits were not affected until 30th September, 1951. In the present case we have had an announcement in November, to be followed, I hope, by the change of benefits in the end of January, 1958. That is a tremendous improvement.

Mr. Ross: It was worse in 1954.

Mr. Turton: In 1954 we cut down very much on the time taken by the hon. Gentleman's own Government in 1951.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the announcement was made early in December and that the increases did not come into force until April, 1955.

Mr. Turton: The period in 1951 was from April to October, a whole six months. We have improved upon it every time.
I ask the Committee to agree to do this by legislation. I hope that the House of Commons will continue to improve the purchasing power of benefits as it has done in the Measures of 1951, 1955 and the present Bill. We must also have the opportunity of improving the National Insurance scheme. I am not at all convinced that everything that we accepted from Lord Beveridge will be all right for all time. We are asked in the Amendment to put the National Insurance scheme into a straitjacket. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, because it will come into the realm of delegated legislation and we shall never be able to improve it. For this reason I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. John Paton: There is an unavoidable tendency in such debates as this to forget that we are dealing with human beings and not simply social categories. This is the real centre of the debate: we are dealing with 4½ million human beings, human personalities. The great majority of them are living most circumscribed and narrow lives. A large number of them are on the verge of deprivation. We should never allow that fact to be driven out of our minds during the cut and thrust of debate across the Floor of the Committee.
This forgetfulness of the real nature of the debate was vividly illustrated by the speech of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper). I am sorry that he has left the Chamber. He said that we should not try to insulate the old-age pensioner against inflation. Does the hon. Member for Ilford, South have any kind of contact with old-age pensioners? Is he incapable of imaginatively understanding the kind of lives most of them lead? The reason why we must insulate the old-age pensioner against inflation is that the vast majority of them live on incomes which are on the verge of destitution, the verge of deprivation. They have no margin which allows them to absorb rises in the cost of living without actually being deprived of something essential to their material well-being. That is why it is an essential duty for us in this House to insulate the old-age pensioner


against the effects of inflation, which is precisely what this Amendment tries to do.
7.30 p.m.
I have listened with great interest to the confusion among hon. Members opposite—it has been expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) and others—about this matter of inflation. The piece of machinery we are proposing in this Amendment would maintain the real value of a sum now decided by the Minister to be an appropriate sum in the circumstances of this time for the maintenance of the old-age pensioner. It is a piece of machinery to maintain that amount in real terms by ensuring that from time to time it will always buy the same amount of goods. How in the name of fortune can that be called inflationary?
The Amendment does not ask the Minister to increase the amount in real terms which the pensioner will get. What it asks him to do is to maintain the amount of the pension in real terms at the level at which this Bill now proposes to put it. There is no inflation whatsoever in that. It is merely a device for keeping the real terms of the old-age pension stable.
I was very interested and very sympathetic to appeals made from both sides by various hon. Members that we should try to take this matter out of party politics. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said he would like to see it taken out of argument and out of parties. I heartily agree with that. Just think what has happened this year and, at intervals of a year or eighteen months, ever since the insurance plan was put on the Statute Book. We have seen agitation and pressure building up over nine months or twelve months from old-age pensioners' associations. We have seen pressure building up and mounting in this Chamber. We have seen the issue discussed in party terms, inevitably, from both sides of the House, in spite of the human, social terms in which I should like to confine it.
I think that is an unfortunate process. What we are trying to do in this Amendment is to stop that process. We want if we can to get some kind of appropriate machinery to do so. We have said several times that we are not tied to the actual

wording of the Amendment. If the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to accept its purpose, we are perfectly willing to leave it to him to evolve the correct form of words, but we are anxious to get rid of the constant party battle about old-age pensions and to put them on such a basis that the old-age pensioner will always be secure, and to know that he is secure. That is the intention and the purpose of our Amendment.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: If that is the sincere wish of the hon. Member—to see this matter taken away from party battling—would he not agree it was most unfortunate that the Labour Party, whilst holding its annual conference at Brighton, thought fit to arrange for coach-loads of old-age pensioners to be taken to that town and paraded through the streets to the conference doors?

Mr. Paton: That is entirely untrue. The hon. Member should not make such assertions in this Committee unless he is in a position to prove them.

Mr. Lagden: I am absolutely in a position to prove it. The Labour Party, and the Trades Congress affiliated to the Labour Party in the constituency I represent, published in the local papers that they did that very thing.

Mr. Paton: I cannot accept it; anyhow, it is quite unimportant.

Mr. James Griffiths: Probably the people concerned in the Horn-church constituency heard what was done by the Tory Party about the Housewives League.

Mr. Paton: The point I am making is that this Amendment is a piece of machinery designed to give the old-age pensioner, at whatever level we choose to fix it at a particular time, a stable basis in real terms. Indeed, the proof of the need for that was provided by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance last Monday in his reply to a Question put to him. He produced in the OFFICIAL REPORT, where any hon. Member can study it—and I suggest it should be studied—a table of figures showing that since 1946, when the Labour Government of that time fixed an old-age pension of 26s., the real value of that 26s. was not exceeded in any single year in real value except one year, 1955, I think it


was, although I am speaking from memory.
The actual excess in real values over the value of the 26s. in 1946 was exactly seven pennies, but the table went on to show that twelve months afterwards the value in real terms has fallen from seven pennies in excess of 26s. value to 1s. less than the 1946 value. Surely it is a matter of very great importance, central importance, in the whole of this discussion that, despite the money increases given under successive Governments in various years, the pension in all those years except one was actually less in real value than in 1946.
A great deal has been said from the benches opposite about 1946 and 1951. I think hon. Members opposite are very often extremely unfair and unjust to the Labour Government of that time. When we devised the pension of 26s. in 1946 it was to the best judgment of the Minister then concerned an amount sufficient for subsistence.

Mr. G. Thomas: Oh, no, not subsistence.

Mr. Paton: Yes, it was. We lifted the pension from 10s. to 26s., the biggest single advance ever made in the amount of the pension, and we did it two years before the National Insurance Act was brought in. For two years we threw the whole cost of that extra pension of 26s. on to the Exchequer. No hon. Member opposite has any really solid ground for taunting us for what we did in 1946. I am very proud of what we did. After 1946, for reasons that no Government have proved able to control, the real value of the pension given in 1946 was always less in real terms than when it was first given. That is what we seek to change.
Lord Beveridge, whose name inevitably has been invoked quite a lot in this debate, in the House of Lords quite recently pointed out something that has a very great and important bearing on this debate. Lord Beveridge does not accept that in his proposals, from which much of the existing legislation sprang, there was any intention of making the basis for pensions a subsistence basis. He denied that. Indeed, he said that in Section 4 of the original Act there is a duty laid on the Minister, not merely in his consideration of National Insurance to pay heed to

the amount of contribution necessary to maintain a given sum, but a duty to see that the level of pension is such as would maintain the beneficiary and his family without any other resources at all. That is Lord Beveridge is interpretation of Section 4 of the main Act. Lord Beveridge is not likely to be wrong on such a matter, and I accept his point of view.
It is because we believe in this concept of subsistence rather than bare existence that we want to put this piece of machinery—the sliding scale provision—into the Bill. It is no use telling us that it would not work. This very principle works admirably over the great mass of industrial workers in this country, whose wages are determined by reference to the cost-of-living index. What can be done by the effective use of industrial machinery can be done just as well under the provisions of the National Insurance Act.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Of course, my hon. Friend will not have overlooked that every civil servant has his salary determined from time to time by reference to this figure.

Mr. Paton: Except the minor ones against whom the Minister of Health may impose a veto.

Mr. Silverman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Paton: We believe that this principle of stability in the real value of a pension is absolutely essential unless we are going to make the pension itself largely a mockery. I do not think any hon. Gentleman opposite will challenge seriously the need for maintaining the real value of these pensions.
Today a great deal of fog has been artificially created which has obscured the only issue that lies between us. Do we on both sides of the Committee desire to maintain the real value of pensions, or do we by deliberate intention perpetuate a fraud upon the old-age pensioner by telling him that we will give him so many shillings and then see to it in the next month or two that he is robbed of several of those shillings by an increase in the cost of living? It is purely to that point that the object of this Amendment is directed.
I hope that the Minister, despite the obvious difficulties that I know he has in


accepting a draft prepared by us, will tell us that he is sympathetic to the idea and is prepared to give it consideration at a later stage in the debate.

Mr. William Shepherd: I do not propose to deal with the general question of the level of pensions. I think that is too wide a subject for the issue which is now before us. However, I disagree strongly with the proposed Amendment, and I want to give my reasons for doing so.
I disagree largely because it is defeatist, and if we have to accept this defeat we must do something on a much wider scale than is envisaged in the Amendment. By and large, those who are active members of the community safeguard themselves in an inflationary condition, whether they are workers or the rentier class. They all do well in an inflationary condition. But the man who does badly is the man who is trying to live on a fixed income which is largely the result of past saving or of a pension scheme.
If we were to accept defeat on this issue, it would be inadequate merely to safeguard the interests of the old-age pensioner. We should of necessity require to say to every person who has saved, either by his own individual saving or through a superannuation scheme or by means of the old-age pension, "You must have a national increment on your saving". That is what justice would demand. If we have to admit defeat in the end, which I hope we do not have to do, the proposal in the Amendment is futile because it does not do justice to the whole community.
7.45 p.m.
May I say a word on whether we should accept defeat? It may well be that if we are to maintain a level of employment of 98 per cent. or 99 per cent. we cannot do it if we have a large investment programme and maintain prices at an even level. I do not know whether we can or not. It is a matter for considerable discussion and dissension among learned economists. It is certainly possible that we shall not be able to maintain a high level of employment and of investment without having an increasing level of prices every year.
That may well be the position that we shall have to face. We cannot avoid that. But before we admit defeat, we

should make the strongest possible endeavours to prevent ourselves from going that way. We must struggle to find some means whereby we combine a high level of investment with a high level of employment with stable prices. I do not want to see anything written into legislation at this stage before we have got to grips sternly with this problem of rising prices. Therefore, it would be unwise to introduce this legislation, because we must try to defeat the bogey of rising prices and inflation, and if we have to admit defeat in the end, which I hope we shall not, we must do something far more widespread than merely giving benefits to a limited section of the community.

Mr. Edward Short: I wish to say a word to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). She alleged that hon. Members on this side of the Committee made political capital out of the need of the old people, and then she proceeded to make the only wholly political speech in the whole of this debate—if I may say so, a rather unscrupulous speech. We on Tyneside know the hon. Lady. We have known her since 1931. She has been making political capital out of the needs of the old people. In fact, she makes political capital out of all sorts of things. In an article which she has written in a newspaper today she says that she is ashamed of her Government increasing the salaries of Members of Parliament. She did not go on to say whether she accepts the increase. We know her well on the Tyneside.
This Amendment, to which the hon. Lady did not refer in her speech, contains, as I understand it, a device which would enable the Minister to protect pensioners from the effects of rising prices—not necessarily from inflation, because inflation is not always the same as rising prices. Since 1946 we have lived in a situation of rising prices, and we can never entirely insulate ourselves from rising prices in this country because we are so dependent on what goes on in other countries upon whom we depend for most of our food and the greater part of the raw materials for our industry.
It is nonsense for hon. Members opposite to say that this is defeatist, because no Government of any complexion can give a 100 per cent. guarantee to insulate this country from rising prices.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that of our total costs, only 25 per cent. represents imports, and therefore three-quarters of this rests with ourselves?

Mr. Short: That may be so, but nevertheless a good deal does depend on the prices we have to pay for our goods in other countries.

Mrs. Slater: is it not also true that prices continued to go up when, on the world market, food prices were going down? The Tories kept the prices up.

Mr. Short: That is another point. The only point that I am making now is that we can never say that in the future prices are not going to rise. In this situation, since 1946 pensioners have always lagged behind. It has taken the most intense lobbying by the National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations and all sorts of other bodies—and every Member knows it—even to keep the purchasing power of the benefits at the 1946 level, let alone to give them any share in any increased national productivity. It has taken the most intense lobbying to keep up the real level. Pensions related in some way or other to the cost of living would stop that process.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) pointed out, there are hundreds of thousands of civil servants and, I believe, some millions of workers, whose wages are automatically related to the cost of living. The device provided for in the Amendment does not go nearly so far as that. All it does is to give the Government power to increase the pension to meet rising costs. That is all—nothing more. In that way, the pension could retain its real value. The proposal is not at all inflationary. It would not enable pensioners to consume any more; it would merely enable them to consume the same amount. How, by any stretch of the imagination, could that be said to be inflationary?
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) asked how it was to be paid for. Of course it must be paid for, and it would have to be paid for as benefits are paid for now, by the three-pronged method by which social benefits have been paid for in this country since 1911.

Mr. Shepherd: It does not say so in the Amendment.

Mr. Short: No, of course not; but that would follow.
If anything were needed to prove that our present scheme had reached a dead end, it is this Bill, if proof were needed, the Bill provides it. The idea of making pensions dynamic and relating them to the cost of living is, of course, embodied in the Labour Party's superannuation plan. That, of course, is not a national insurance scheme like the present one with a flat-rate contribution earning a flat-rate pension; it is a plan for superannuation.
I believe that pensions should be reviewed in the light of rises in the cost of living, but not on the present Retail Prices Index. I have always believed that the present price index has little relevance to the spending pattern of old people. Even in one item, food, the spending pattern of old people is different from that of middle-aged couples. I am glad that in the Labour Party's national superannuation plan we undertake to introduce a new price index which will be directly related to the needs of old people. I cannot understand the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the simple, permissive power which the Amendment would give to the Government. The country will understand, whether it is written into the Bill or not, that it most certainly will appear in the Bill providing for a national superannuation scheme which will be introduced in 1960.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am really astonished that the proposal should be resisted. After all, what is the Bill about? The Bill is intended to deal with the results of the fact that some such provision as we are now pressing upon the Government was not previously made. I am not arguing about whose fault that was or which of the two sides is more meritorious in its treatment of old-age pensions, but it is perfectly clear that the purpose of the Government in introducing the Bill at all is to go some way towards making sure that the purchasing power of the old-age pension shall be related, by the increases now proposed, to the increase in the cost of living since the last date when any change was made. This we are doing by Act of Parliament because, whatever we may think about the rest of it, everybody in the Committee at this moment, on both sides, thinks that


that is the right thing to do. The principle, therefore, is established by the existence of the Bill. It is designed to raise the pension because the cost of living has risen.
What is the proposal now being made from these benches? It is to leave the Government with power, which they can exercise or not exercise according to their discretion at the material time, to do this thing which we all know to be a right thing to do without having to depend upon passing an Act of Parliament with all the difficulties and loss of time that that involves. I give the Government this credit, that the very thing we are doing now would have been done six or eight months ago but for the exigencies of finding Parliamentary time to pass the necessary legislation. We are proposing that, in future, a Government wanting to do this act of elementary justice shall be able to do it without having to fit it into what might, by that time, have become a complex and complicated legislative programme.
Why is it resisted? One hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, but this is delegated legislation". Heaven knows, we have enough delegated legislation in other matters. I wish they were all as harmless as delegated legislation in respect of this one would be.

Mr. J. Paton: Including the N.A.B. scales.

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to embark upon a catalogue of them because I do not wish to take very long. If ever there were a case for having delegated legislation at all and one were to try to pick on the prime case in respect of which the principle of delegated legislation could be applied without political mischief of any kind, that case would surely be one wherein the principle has been time after time accepted with virtual unanimity in the House of Commons and all that is required is an administrative act to apply the principle in the new circumstances. If hon. Members are going to attack delegated legislation for a purpose like that, it is extremely difficult to see how they can defend any delegated legislation at all.
Another hon. Gentleman, who was obviously actuated by the best intentions in the world, said that our proposal is defeatist. In order to judge whether a

proposal is or is not defeatist, one must ascertain what is the object one wishes to attain and then examine whether the proposal is more likely to attain or to defeat it. Since the object of this proposal is to achieve the object of the Bill whenever the circumstances which require the operation to take place occur, it is clearly not defeatist at all but represents the only way in which we can keep the thing moving most easily and with least delay.
I think I know what the hon. Gentleman really meant. He meant something quite different. What he was really intending to say to the Committee, I believe, was, "You cannot do this except by implicitly accepting that prices will continue to rise, and you ought not, even implicitly, to make such an assumption". That, I think, does reasonable justice to the hon. Gentleman's argument. As has been pointed out already, this is not a Bill about inflation. It is not a Bill about rising prices. It is a Bill about pensions, and I do not suppose that there would be a single vote cast in this Committee against the Government's Bill, amended or unamended, even if it were shown by the clearest and most convincing evidence that it was an inflationary Measure. We should still do it. We should still say that old-age pensions ought to be brought into better relation with the existing level of prices, even if the effect of so doing were to add a little inflationary twist to the economic screw. Surely, we should do that. It does not, of course, do any such thing. I say to the hon. Gentleman that if he has doubts about this on the score that if we were even to contemplate the possibility that prices would continue to rise this would be defeatism and for that reason we should not do it, I beg of him in all sincerity to think again.
8.0 p.m.
I do not know whether the Government are right or wrong, although I have a clear notion and suspicion that they are wrong, when they say that their efforts to control inflation and to make prices more stable will succeed. Let us give them the benefit of the doubt and suppose that they are right. Supposing as the result of raising the Bank Rate or whatever else the Government are doing to arrest inflation and the lowering of the value of money that has been going on progressively for about 500 years, the


Government bring all this to a sudden stop next week. I do not know whether they really claim that, but let us suppose they do; let us suppose that they are right. In that case, the proposal that we are now presenting to the Committee will never cost the Government or anybody else one single farthing. Therefore, the real defeatism is not to support this proposal but to oppose it. That surely follows.
If prices are not to increase, a proposal to raise prices when they increase will never cost anything. It is only if we suppose that the prices will continue to increase that there will be any cost or that it will make any difference to the pensions that the Government have to pay, and that would be real defeatism. Surely, no question of defeatism is involved in this proposal one way or the other.
I wish the Government luck with their proposals. I do not think they are the best proposals. I think that our proposals to halt inflation—I do not say to stop it altogether; I do not think anything will ever do that—to put the brakes on, to hold it steady for a time and to retard the acceleration, are very much better than the Government's; but we may be wrong about that. It may be that the Government are right and that they will succeed. If they do, well and good; no harm will be done by the proposal that we are making.
Let us, however, concede the bare possibility that the Government may be mistaken. It may be because of our own fault. It may be because of movements in world prices, which no Government and no policy, with the best will in the world, are able to control. Is there any Member of the Committee who would say that in those circumstances we would not at a suitable time have to raise the pensions again? And if we do have to do it, is it not better to have a machine which prevents these continual arguments from side to side in Committee and the bus loads of old-age pensioners going down to party conferences? We can avoid all that if we accept the proposal contained in the Amendment. There would never be any more dispute.
There might be a dispute as to whether the pensioners were getting a fair share of the community's wealth considered in an

absolute sense—that, indeed, we could argue; but as for accepting the principle of the present rate of pension and its purchasing power so that shall not change if prices move against the pensioner, this we can bring to an end once and for all. But I do not think that the Government want it to be brought to an end. I have been a long time here now. For nearly 20 years I have heard this cant and humbug about taking poverty out of politics. We cannot take poverty out of politics. Politics is about poverty. That is the division between the two sides of the House.
These questions about pensions, about wages and about conditions of labour and all the rest are quarrels about the division of the national cake. Until we have a system which is based upon the assumption that the cake really belongs to the nation and ought to be divided according to the needs of its various members, there will always be a conflict between classes about who is to get a bigger or a larger share of something. In present circumstances, people can go on talking from now until Doomsday about taking poverty out of politics, but they will never succeed in doing it. Indeed, if it had not been for that fact, there would never have been a Labour Party sitting in the House of Commons at all.
It seems to me that this proposal has everything to commend it and nothing at all to be said against it that makes any sense in relation to the general purposes of the Bill, and I hope that the Government will be able to think again.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is quite a time since the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) moved the Amendment. I hope it may be possible for the Committee to make rather better progress on further Amendments because, as the Committee knows, both sides are anxious to get the changes in the Bill into operation. It is an essential part of that process which has been urged upon me even this afternoon, that the passage of the Bill should be as speedy as possible. I hope, therefore, that I am not being discourteous to the Committee—I have listened to every word of the debate—if I express the hope that on further Amendments we might get along a little quicker.
I should like to take the opportunity, too, of giving a belated welcome back to


the House to the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich. I missed his quasi-maiden speech a few days ago; so if I may be allowed to say so personally, it was a great pleasure to hear him this afternoon. I have always entertained a high regard for the powers of discrimination of the hon. and learned Member since, as President of the Oxford Union, he gave me my first opportunity to speak "on the paper."
The hon. and learned Member began his speech this afternoon by saying that the Amendment was self-explanatory, and I agree with him. It did not, however, appear to be self-explanatory to a number of his hon. Friends. Quite a lot of speeches seemed to be made under the belief that the effect of the Amendment, if carried into law, would be to tie retirement pensions and other National Insurance benefits to the cost of living. Indeed, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton) said quite a lot about the desirability of that, and several hon. Members suggested either that it was a good thing or a bad thing to insulate the retirement pensioner against inflation.
If, however, hon. Members look at the Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper, it is clear that it does nothing of the sort. It simply gives powers to the Minister, where it appears expedient to him, to make an order. These are the words:
where it appears to the Minister expedient to do so in order to maintain the purchasing power of benefit he may by order direct….
It amounts, therefore, not to a great measure of social reform, as one or two hon. Members seemed to have thought, but simply to a proposed adaptation of the procedure of the House of Commons for dealing with certain changes under our National Insurance system. They would, I think, be changes for the worse.
It is an unusual position on the Amendment. Here is an Amendment bearing on it a number of nostalgically Liberal names urging a most illiberal concentration of power in a Minister, and here is the Minister doing his best to resist having this power given to him.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who are the Liberal names?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I rely on the hon. Member's clear and concise power of reading to form his own view. It is,

of course, a procedure which, whatever other effect it had, would restrict the power of Parliament to deal legislatively with this problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because, for the reasons I have already given, if a Minister decided to exercise this power, his proposals would come forward, not as this Bill has come forward, in the shape in which it has to go to Committee and be debated on Amendment, as it is at this moment, but in the shape of a Statutory Instrument which, though debatable and open to be voted upon, cannot be amended and has only one stage in this House and one stage in another place.

Mr. S. Silverman: Of course, it is perfectly clear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Under the Amendment, if it is carried, that procedure could be carried out, but why does he say that that excludes Parliamentary or legislative action? Plainly, if the Government of the day prefer to put a Bill before Parliament and Parliament is prepared to pass it, nothing could stop them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening he would not have made that intervention. I said it would be open to the Minister to introduce the proceedings in this way; that is, by Statutory Instrument. Of course, I do not say—the hon. Gentleman must listen, and then he will be better able to understand—that it would be impossible to proceed by introducing a Bill, but I did say that we would be empowering a Minister to effect these changes without introducing a Bill, if he so wished.
It is very much a matter of judgment which are the measures the House of Commons thinks can safely be left to delegated legislation and which are the matters which ought to be left to be dealt with only by the full Parliamentary procedure of legislation. I am bound to say that I personally regard major changes in the National Insurance Scheme, in particular, the benefits and the contributions payable under it, as being matters of such major importance as to be matters which this House ought to keep in its control, to be debated in the ordinary way on a Parliamentary Bill. I think it is a general principle, though it may be possible to find exceptions, that matters of major


importance, affecting very much numbers of our fellow-countrymen and the economy of the country, ought not to be left so that they can be dealt with, even at the choice of the Government, by the procedure of delegated legislation.
Let us take another difficulty that plainly arises on this Amendment. It provides, as one of my hon. Friends has pointed out, that this procedure of the Statutory Instrument can be used to raise the rates of benefit, but makes no provision for similar action in respect of contributions It makes no provision, as there is under the present system, for Parliament to consider the proposed benefits under this contributory scheme against the background of the need to impose higher contributions to pay for them. It does not provide, as at present, for considering the whole finances of the scheme when changes are proposed, with the submission of a report by the Government Actuary, so that Parliament can consider whether the proposals put forward are such, in the light also of the contributions being paid, as to jeopardise the National Insurance Fund or not. It simply takes an admittedly highly important but nevertheless one aspect—the benefits provided—and provides that they can be increased by Statutory Instrument, but makes no provision for increasing in this way either the contributions of the employed persons or employers or for legislating to alter the Exchequer contribution either.
This is not the way in which this House would want to deal with a matter of this importance. I think also that there is a little confusion of mind behind this, a confusion, perhaps, as between the different functions of National Insurance benefits and National Assistance. As has been pointed out, National Assistance scales can be changed in the way proposed by this Amendment. They involve no question of contributions, as National Assistance is paid for by the taxpayer, and that procedure was provided for in 1948—the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) can correct me if I am wrong—in order to provide a speedy method of altering the National Assistance scales, because National Assistance, which is the long stop of the social services, is needed to prevent absolute hardship if prices change quickly. It has never been the view that National Insurance

benefits should be changed quickly and frequently. Indeed, the Phillips Committee, in paragraph 311 of its Report, said the exact opposite. It said:
There cannot be any stereotyped formula for fixing the level of benefits, and changes should be at infrequent intervals;
I think there really is confusion between National Assistance, which we all agree needs to be possible to be moved quickly, and National Insurance benefits, involving as they do contributions as well as benefits, and payments made, without a means test, in many cases to people not in any real sense in need, which should be changed in the light of different factors, but not necessarily with great rapidity. And that is the distinction which has been a little blurred in the debate today.
8.15 p.m.
I think too that undue attention has been given, even from the point of view of speed in effecting these changes, to the Parliamentary process. In truth and in fact, however it may be done, whether by Statutory Instrument or by Bill, the actual change of benefits and contributions in our National Insurance system, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly knows very well, is a very considerable operation to undertake. It involves the bringing in of books for alteration into the National Insurance offices by 4¾ million retirement pensioners, and effecting that process without preventing the weekly payment of benefits through the post office, the alteration of a whole variety of incremented and sub-standard benefits, as well as wide varieties of other benefits, unemployment, sickness, and so on. The Committee will be deluding itself by believing that by adopting this system it could achieve very much acceleration than under the system which I propose if this Committee is prepared to deal speedily with the Bill.
With the good will and co-operation of the Committee, the time when we propose to bring these changes into effect is still within three months from the date of the announcement, and very considerably less than on any previous occasion. I very much doubt whether, whatever Parliamentary process we used, the time for the operation could be very much reduced. If that be so, and I say it with all responsibility to the House that it seems to me to be so, the case, even on the grounds of speed, for sacrificing the possibilities of detailed Parliamentary


control over changes of this sort evaporates.
Therefore, I ask the Committee to come to its decision in the light of this fact. This is not the proposal contained in the Labour Party's own plan for automatic adjustment. It is merely an empowering provision for a Minister. It does not, as surely must be essential if we are to vary the benefits in a contributory scheme, contain ally provisions whatever for altering the contributions or improving the Exchequer contributions or taking any step whatever to pay for the increases authorised by Statutory Instrument. Even as a bit of procedure, and it purports to be no more, it is defective, and I hope the Committee will decide to reject it.

Mr. Marquand: I am in sympathy with the Minister's anxiety to get on with this Bill. I want to assure the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and hon. Members opposite generally that it is the settled policy of the Labour Party that the purchasing power of pensions should be reviewed annually and, if they are deficient in purchasing power, then the appropriate adjustments should be made. This is our definite policy, repeated many times during the last year or two and in our policy documents.
Of course, we are not necessarily wedded to the exact form of doing this which has been put forward in the Amendment. This was the only possible form of Amendment which would suit this particular Bill, but we had in mind a very different type of Bill when we come to legislate on these matters. Therefore, much of the argument about the actual machinery proposed in the Amendment is irrelevant to what has been the real debate on this subject today, and it has been an extraordinary good debate.
I must brush on one side, if I am to be brief, arguments about the procedure, to which the Minister devoted so much of his time. What we wish to emphasise by moving the Amendment is the need for speed in future in making the necessary adjustments and the need for real protection for the pensioner. There is no real protection for him against the effects of inflation if there are long gaps between the adjustments which have to be made. The pensioner certainly needs the protection.
As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) quite rightly reminded us, almost every other class in the community has its way of protecting itself against the effects of inflation. The profit earners benefit automatically from the process of inflation; their profits go up. The wage earners—some of them—have the advantage of agreements which tie their wages to tile cost of living. All of them have the opportunity of collective bargaining and if necessary, resort to the ultimate weapon of the strike. Even the rentier classes nowadays can adjust themselves to the effects of inflation by adjusting their portfolios, and they are learning very rapidly how to do it. The State itself is a beneficiary, judged by money income, of the process of inflation. The State, year by year, while the process of inflation goes on, gains increased money income.
So it is the pensioner who is the chief victim of inflation and who suffers more severely than anybody, and he alone has no remedy whatever. What we are proposing is that a remedy be taken for dealing rapidly with his predicament.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said, when he completely demolished the argument of the hon. Member for Cheadle, the hest remedy for the pensioner is to concentrate on the ending of inflation. If inflation is ended by general and appropriate fiscal and economic measures, the need for protecting the pensioner simply does not arise. We have to consider what happens if Government policy fails, as it has certainly failed in the past, to check the process of inflation. It is not to say that we expect inflation to continue for ever if we try to devise ways and means for protecting the most unfortunate class in our community from its effects. It is not to say that at all.
What we need is a method of accelerating the process whereby the pensioner's money income can be adjusted to the rise in prices. It is not only, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) suggested, a matter of speeding up the business of printing books. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne put his finger right on the spot. That is not the major difficulty. The major difficulty is the difficulty of getting the necessary legislation—not putting it through the House of Commons, but getting it on the


timetable of the House of Commons. The difficulty arises even for the Minister who may want to do this. After he has studied the matter for a month or two and come to the conclusion that something ought to be done, he has no opportunity of doing it for another twelve months. While he is considering the need he loses the place for his Bill in the timetable of the Bills coming before Parliament. He is told, "Bring it in the next Session." He waits for the next Session and then it takes months to get the Bill through. The method as we have it at the moment is not sufficiently rapid.
We believe that what we can do for National Assistance ought to be possible for pensions as well. I think the Minister's real answer to the nub of the case, as it was certainly the answer of many of his hon. Friends, was that it was sufficient to raise the National Assistance level. We have streamlined the method of doing that. We do not say that that is sufficient. We must have a means of maintaining whatever is thought to be what the right hon. Gentleman called the other day the appropriate "lead" between pension and National Assistance levels. We must have for the time being power to raise the pension, the pension to be supplemented later by the necessary legislation.
The Amendment does not say that once an increase has been made by this emergency method there should be no increases in contributions. There is nothing in the Amendment to prevent an increase in contributions. Indeed, we think it ought to be possible to devise a method of raising the money for pensions, for a graduated rate of pension, which would make that adjustment automatic. The way to do it is to have a rate of contribution which is graduated, which rises and falls with the rise of incomes of the contributors. In that way, when inflation occurs, contributions will automatically rise in proportion to the rise in money incomes and there will be no difficulty whatever in financing the necessary increase in the pension itself.
I promised to be brief. I have compressed my remarks into a very short space. I hope the Committee, in spite of the Minister's opinion, will accept the Amendment.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am sorry to prolong the debate, but I rose to speak before and I am sure that the Minister and my right hon. Friend must have seen me, but, if I am in any way annoying anyone by continuing the debate, I hope that it will be understood that I am the victim of circumstances over which I had no control. We have had a very wide debate on this Amendment, and many things have been said during it, some of them relevant, some of them rather irrelevant, and some of them somewhat irreverent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said, in a debate on an Amendment like this we show our sense of values.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we cannot take pensions out of politics, because it is a question of values. It is a question of what one puts first. I make no bones about it. Any decent, sensible society puts the very old and the young as the first claimants upon its resources. What is it we are asking? We are merely asking that the old people of today should retain their present standard of living in the future. Is it too much?
When I see self-satisfied people who have never known poverty, never known hunger, never known misery, never known anxiety, always arguing how difficult it is to do anything for the people right at the bottom, I get sick and tired. It makes me sick and tired of a country professing to be Christian. We are asking that the people with whom the Amendment is concerned should be protected from poverty in future. Poverty kills people just as guns do, and death from poverty is usually more prolonged and agonising.
I want to protect the old people from the poverty that they are likely to endure the longer this Government survive, and I am not worried about the cost. Hon. Members are not worried about the cost of defence. If the Minister of Defence said tomorrow that our scientists had designed a super-bomb that would cost £2,000 million, not a voice would be raised against our having it. We should find the money for that, but when it comes to finding the money for the sensible things of life it is not to be found.
The Amendment is modest. I should have thought that a party whose spokesman not long ago was talking about


doubling the standard of living in 25 years would see to it that pensioners would have the right to look forward not to doubling their standard of living but to at least maintaining their present standard. That is what the Amendment seeks to do. It is not as hopeful as the Lord Privy Seal. It is not thinking in terms of doubling the standard of living but merely of maintaining it. The Minister talks about the administrative difficulties of printing 4 million pension books in a matter of three or four months, and he thinks that because it is intended to do it in three months we are doing a marvellous job.

Mr. Cooper: Better than the hon. Member's party did.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member never raised his voice when the Surtax-payers received a relief of £35 million. I am sure that if he had spoken he would not have said that was inflationary. Furthermore, there was no protest and not a single voice was raised when the Minister of Defence announced last June that in order to compensate certain redundant Army officers we had to find £50 million. It is remarkable that when we have to find something for those who have the least, the loudest voices claiming that it cannot be done are the voices of those who have the most.
The Minister says that it will take three months to print the pension books

A new White Paper on Civil Defence has just been published and we are told in it that in certain circumstances we should evacuate 12 million people. What a situation when we can move 12 million people, in a matter of hours presumably, but cannot print 4 million pension books under three months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sack the Minister"]

On Friday night I was in a house where a man was putting the noughts and crosses on a football pool coupon. My friends tell me that Littlewood's receive millions of these coupons every Saturday and that though it is not until 5 o'clock on a Saturday night that they know who has been successful, yet by Tuesday everybody has received what is due to them. If Littlewood's can do that with their limited resources, surely with the Government's resources, if there were the will and determination, a way would be found in this case. I believe that we are entitled to ask the Minister to think again about the Amendment.

We are even more entitled to ask the Minister to see whether he cannot possibly bring forward the day for payment of these increases, and thus bring immediate relief to many thousands of those who desperately need it.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:

The Committee divided: Ayes 199, Noes 226.

Division No. 5.]
AYES
[8.35 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Chapman, W. D.
Gibson, C. W.


Albu, A. H.
Clunie, J.
Greenwood, Anthony


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Coldrick, W.
Crenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Grey, C. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Griffiths, David (Rother, Valley)


Awbery, S. S.
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grimond, J.


Balfour, A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hale, Leslie


Besin, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Benson, G.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hannan, W.


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hastings, S.


Blyton, W. R.
Deer, C.
Hayman, F. H.


Boardman, H.
Delargy, H. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Diamond, John
Herbison, Miss M.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Dodds, N. N.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Donnelly, D. L.
Holman, P.


Bowles, F. G.
Dugdale, Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Holmes, Horace


Boyd, T. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edelman, M.
Hoy, J. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hubbard, T. F.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hunter, A. E.


Burke, W. A.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Fernyhough, E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Finch, H. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Callaghan, L. J.
Foot, D. M.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Champion, A. J.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)




Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Oram, A. E.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Orbach, M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Oswald, T.
Snow, J. W.


Kenyon, C.
Owen, W. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Padley, W. E.
Stonehouse, John


King, Dr. H. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Lawson, G. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Ledger, R. J.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pargiter, G. A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lindgren, G. S.
Parker, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lipton, Marcus
Paton, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


McGhee, H. G.
Pentland, N.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McInnes, J.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thornton, E.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Popplewell, E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McLeavy, Frank
Prentice, R. E.
Viant, S. P.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Weitzman, D.


Mahon, Simon
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Proctor, W. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Pryde, D. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Randall, H. E.
Wigg, George


Macon, Roy
Rankin, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Mayhew, C. P.
Redhead, E. C.
Willey, Frederick


Mellish, R. J.
Reeves, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Messer, Sir F.
Reid, William
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Mikardo, Ian
Rhodes, H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Monslow, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Moody, A. S.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Ross, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Moss, R.
Royle, C.
Winterbottom, Richard


Moyle, A.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mulley, F. W.
Short, E. W.
Woof, R. E.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Zilliacus, K.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)



Oliver, G. H.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W)


Aitken, W. T.
Dance, J. C. G.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Alport, C. J. M.
Davidson, Viscountess
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid Sir Henry
Harrison. Col. J. H. (Eye)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat(Tiverton)
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesd)


Armstrong, C. W.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Ashton, H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hay, John


Atkins, H. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Drayson, G. B.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Balniel, Lord
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Barber, Anthony
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Barlow, Sir John
Duncan, Sir James
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Barter, John
Duthie, W. S.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'castle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hornby, R. P.


Bidgood, J. C.
Errington, Sir Eric
Horobin, Sir Ian


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fell, A.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Black, C. W.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Forrest, G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fort, R.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Braine, B. R.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gammans, Lady
Iremonger, T. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Glover, D.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Burden, F. F. A.
Glyn, Col. R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Godber, J. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Campbell, Sir David
Goodhart, Philip
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gough, C. F. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Cole, Norman
Gower, H. R.
Kaberry, D.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Cooke, Robert
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Cooper, A. E.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Kershaw, J. A.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Green, A.
Kimball, M.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Kirk, P. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gurden, Harold
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cunningham, Knox
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Leather, E. H. C.







Leavey, J. A.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Leburn, W. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Spans, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Osborne, C.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Partridge, E.
Storey, S.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peyton, J. W. W.
Studholme, Sir Henry


McAdden, S. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Teeling, W.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Pitman, I. J.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Pott, H. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Madden, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Profumo, J. D.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rawlinson, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Marshall, Douglas
Redmayne, M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Mathew, R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Maude, Angus
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wall, Major Patrick


Mawby, R. L.
Renton, D. L. M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Rippon, A. G. F.
Webbe, Sir H.


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Russell, R. S.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Neave, Airey
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Sharples, R. C.
Woollam, John Victor


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Shepherd, William
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)



Oakshott, H. D.
Sperman, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Bryan and Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(3) Subsection (3) of section four of the National Insurance Act, 1951 (which provides for the increase of a retirement pension by one shilling and sixpence for every twenty-five contributions as an employed or self-employed person pa id by the beneficiary after attaining pensionable age) shall have effect as if for the reference to one shilling and sixpence there were substituted a reference to two shillings and as if the reference to the appointed day were a reference to the appointed day under this Act.
The effect of the Amendment, if accepted by the Committee, would be to increase the increment which retirement pensioners may earn on their pension when they stay on at work. I think that the Committee agrees that the provision of an increment of this kind, which gives retirement pensioners some incentive to stay on at work and to earn some reward for doing so, is a good one. It is good for the economy that those who are fit and able to work should continue to do so, and it is unquestionably good for the individual, as everybody who has ever paid any attention at all to the modern science of geriatrics knows full well.
8.45 p.m.
On Second Reading I pointed out that the incentive to continue at work, which at present enables a pensioner who is able to work a year to earn an additional

income of 3s. a week upon his retirement pension, is proportionately lessened by the increase in pension. The extra contribution of 2s. a week to be levied does not merely mean a lessened incentive but a positive disincentive to the pensioner.
Thus, the case for increasing the increment is twofold, not merely to make the increment proportionally the same to the pension as previously but to compensate the pensioner and give him some additional incentive to overcome the immense increase in contribution which he will be asked to pay if he remains at work. If the provisions in the Bill are passed and a pensioner remains at work and refrains from taking a pension, worth £130 if he is single and £208 if he is married, he will be paying £5 more in contribution than at present, and the extra annual income that he can earn by postponing his retirement is only £7 10s. It is not a very good bargain. It is a very much worse bargain than he has at the moment.
Pensioners make these calculations for themselves very carefully indeed. It is no use imagining they are content to be told that they can earn an addition to their pension if they stay at work. They sit down and work it out for themselves. There is not an hon. Member who has not received the sort of letters which I


have received in very large numbers because people know my special interest in this subject. These show that pensioners carefully calculate how much pension they will forgo and balance it against how much they might earn by increment in relation to what they know to be their expectation of life when they reach seventy.
I have a letter which I had intended quoting, but, as time is running short, and we are not making the progress that we ought perhaps to be making to fulfil our pledge not to impede the opportunity of pensioners to get what money is to be provided for them, I shall not read it. I am sure all hon. Members have seen similar letters.
Pensioners feel that they make a bad bargain now if they postpone retirement, and some of them hesitate to do so. Under the new condition of the extra contribution, with the increment remaining the same and the pension being larger, the incentive to retire is very much greater than at the present time.
Our proposal is a very modest one, to add 6d. to the present 1s. 6d. increase in pension which is permitted for every twenty-five contributions made while remaining at work after pensionable age. When I looked at the Amendment in print, I began to think it was too modest and wished I had made the amount larger. Our proposal is to increase from £7 10s. a year to £10 the extra amount that a pensioner can earn in this way. If the Minister thinks this is too small—I hope he does—and suggests a larger figure, we shall certainly not object. I certainly hope that this entirely reasonable proposal will be acceptable to the Minister.
I note that the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply for the Government and so my hopes are raised, because I feel sure that had the Minister desired to say how wrong or mistaken was this Amendment and how its acceptance would ruin the economy, he would have taken this opportunity to say so.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) made a speech during the Second Reading debate entirely in favour of what I said about increments. I hope that other hon. Members opposite who are now present in the Chamber—

unfortunately there are very few of them—will agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke. To me the astonishing feature of the Bill is that it does not contain a proposal for some increase in this increment. Surely, to give an increment to the pensioner to encourage him to remain at work while he can, and to give him some addition to his meagre pension, is one of the best ways of keeping the Fund solvent, and the Minister is anxious about the solvency of the Fund. It would also help to keep our economy in good shape and to keep old people well. It is really a welfare provision for many old people and I am astounded that the Government did not think of altering the figure. However, now I have drawn attention to the matter I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. T. Brown: Because of the lack of time, I will not labour the point, but I wish to refer to what is happening now under what we call "the incentive". When the Bill which became the 1950 Act was before the House great stress was laid on the fact that the incentive would help people to continue at work. We now find that when people of pensionable age respond to the exhortations of the Government to continue at work as long as possible, and receive an increase of 1s. 6d. per twenty-five stamps—approximately an extra 3s. a year—that is taken into consideration by the National Assistance Board when assessing their needs, which is manifestly unfair. If these people are offered an incentive and pay for it, that should be completely disregarded when their needs are assessed. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to consider this matter again.

Mr. Hunter: I wish to support the Amendment. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough. East (Mr. Marquand) that it is very modest. It proposes to increase the figure of 3s. per year to 4s., which may be earned by a woman who continues working after the age of 60 or a man after the age of 65. Surely, that is a very modest increase and I hope that the Government will accept it.
If a man or woman who has reached retirement age continues to work for five years, then under the Amendment he or she would receive £1 a week extra instead


of the 15s. provided under the existing Regulations. We want to encourage a person who is fit and well to continue in industry if he or she wishes to do so. Therefore, the Amendment encourages people in good health and who want voluntarily to continue in industry to carry on. Surely we are not asking the Government for very much in this modest Amendment.
It is a matter of 6d. extra for each six months. Often we have heard hon. Members on both sides of the Committee complain about the restrictions on old-age pensioners who work. The Amendment gives the Government the opportunity to increase the present increment which a person can earn. It is a very small beginning. It is only. 1s. a year extra—making it 4s. extra per week for a person who is fit and well and wishes to continue at work. I hope very much that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Miss Pitt: I have considerable sympathy with the points which have been made in this brief discussion on increments, particularly those put forward by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand)—who has just passed me a note apologising for not being present while I am replying,—when he said that to encourage people to stay at work was good for the economy and good for the individual. Of course, we all agree with that.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) stressed the fact that we ought to encourage people to carry on at work. I heartily support that suggestion, but we have to consider the main purpose of increments. The Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman said, would increase the increment for every twenty-five contributions paid after the minimum pension age from 1s. 6d. to 2s. The Amendment does not propose any increase for the wife who enjoys an increment by right of her husband's contributions while she is over pension age, which is at present 1s.
I should like for a moment to look back at the history of increments. The 1946 Act proposed that the increment should be 1s. both for husband and wife by right of his insurance. That, incidentally, was double the amount originally recommended by Lord Beveridge. In 1951, the increment was raised to 1s. 6d. for the

insured person only and it still remains at 1s. for his wife. That, I understand, was to provide added incentive to postpone retirement at the time when the party opposite increased the retirement pension for some pensioners up to 30s. But the purpose of the increment is not so much an inducement to encourage people to stay on at work as an effort to avoid discouraging them from staying, on at work. Why do people stay on?

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Because they cannot live unless they do so.

Miss Pitt: Hon. Members opposite must know this from their own experience. The answer has been given by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer). Men and women stay on at work—certainly from my experience in Birmingham—in the main because they wish to continue to enjoy full wages. That is the first and most important incentive.
The second reason—and one again, I think, not without importance—is that they want to retain the interest and satisfaction of doing a job of work. I have said before in the House—and I have found considerable agreement for it—that in my experience as a factory welfare officer men hated the thought that they would have to retire at the age of sixty-five. They were not made to do so. It was part of my duty to try to fit them into the pattern of work in the factory. If ever it crossed their minds that they might be compelled to retire at sixty-five they would come and ask me to help them. They wanted to continue at work and they were afraid that if they gave up work they would lose their interest in life.
9.0 p.m.
I would attach considerable importance to that principle in considering the reasons why men remain at work. When the Phillips Committee reported in 1954 it said it considered that increments had little or no effect in inducing people to postpone retirement. It recommended that increments should not be increased even if benefit rates were increased.

Mr. Willis: What has this to do with discouraging people? The hon. Lady spoke about giving incentives to discourage people from retiring.

Miss Pitt: The aim of increments is to avoid any discouragement to people to stay on at work.

Mr. G. Thomas: A double negative.

Miss Pitt: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), from his experience in the past as a schoolteacher, corrects my double negative. It is in part an incentive, but, as I asked earlier, what part does it play in a man's consideration of whether he shall stay on at work after sixty-five.
After this digression may I complete what I wanted to say? Otherwise it may not sound a very logical argument. I had just quoted what the Phillips Committee said. It based its conclusions on the Minister's inquiry into the reasons given for retiring or continuing at work. I regard it as most important evidence, because it showed that only seven persons in 1,000 gave increments as their reason for remaining at work after retiring age. This is where we get to the weight we should attach to increments as an incentive.
I agree that increments remain an important part of the scheme. The question today ought to be looked at in the whole context of increments. My right hon. Friend was asked sometime ago, and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked him again today, about shorter steps in increments. My right hon. Friend has said that he has not yet completed his consideration. He has been pressed to consider whether shorter steps than twenty-six weeks are possible, perhaps providing a smaller increment, to help men and women who are able to work for a considerable number of weeks but do not quite achieve the required number and so lose another increment.

Mr. T. Brown: Would not the hon. Lady agree that the Phillips Committee reported in 1954, although the incentive was put into the Act of 1951?

Mr. J. Griffiths: It was in the 1946 Act.

Mr. Brown: If we were right to put the incentive at 1s. 6d. in 1951, is it not logical to increase it to 2s. now to meet present-day values?

Miss Pitt: I agree that the Phillips Committee reported in 1954. Among

other things, it considered increments, and I was quoting from that part of the Report which refers to them. I had got to the stage where I said that we ought to consider other aspects of increments, in particular, shorter steps and the provision of perhaps smaller increments for a smaller number of weeks of work.
I ought also to make the point, although I do so with a little diffidence, that women have a very much better return than men for the extra weeks of work after retiring age and for the increments they enjoy, because they retire earlier and live longer. Therefore, they enjoy the increments for a very much longer period.
Although it is never argued, and I do not think it has ever been said on either side of the Committee, that increments provide a full return for pensions forgone and contributions paid, there is some unfairness in the fact that women enjoy greater benefit from increments than men. In saying that I want to make it clear that I am not anti-feminine. Although the female of the species is perhaps no more sturdy than the male, she certainly manages to live longer and therefore enjoys a better return from the increments she manages to build up after her normal retiring age, which is sixty.

Mr. Willis: What has this to do with the Amendment?

Miss Pitt: I am stressing the fact that we ought not to consider the amount of the increment alone. There are other considerations we should take into account when thinking of increments. One, I hope I have made clear, is the shorter steps, and another is that as at present placed women enjoy a better return than men. Whatever the problem in increments, it is tied with the structure of the National Insurance Scheme.
I think it inappropriate in a Bill which proposes to increase benefit rates to suggest that we should amend the amount of increments. [HON. MEMBERS:" Why?"]The increments are an addition to the basic pension, and to improve them would not help existing pensioners. Therefore, this is outside the main purpose of the Bill, because the Amendment proposes only to increase increments after the appointed day.
I think it is part of the consideration we should give to the wider aspects of the


structure of the Scheme, but it has no bearing on the present Bill, which is intended to raise benefits and increase contributions. For that reason, I am sorry that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. Brown: Will the hon. Lady answer the question I put to her?

Miss Pitt: I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). I had made a note to try to answer his question. He asked whether increments could not be disregarded in applying for National Assistance. I shall have to answer the hon. Member, as I think he has been answered before, that the National Assistance Board has a statutory duty to take means into account. As increments are income, the Board is bound to take them into account when assessing means under the National Assistance Act.

Mr. Ede: We have listened to a most extraordinary speech. The hon. Lady made a bad start so far as we were concerned because she assured us that she had considerable sympathy with us. That is a certain sign that what is wanted is going to be refused.
I cannot understand the logic of the argument of the hon. Lady, particularly having regard to what we heard in discussion on the previous Amendment. In this case there is some productivity in return for the expenditure. To that extent this may be not inflationary at all, or at any rate less inflationary than some of the other proposals in this Measure. It seemed to me that the main burden of the argument of the hon. Lady was that we ought to have proposed a great deal more in the way of further amendments of the law, such as shorter periods. If the hon. Lady or the right hon. Gentleman, who has now returned to support her, will bring in an Amendment proposing shorter periods and any of the other things the hon. Lady mentioned, they can rest assured that they will find no opposition from this side of the Committee.
I should feel reassured in regard to the whole of the argument of the hon. Lady if she had said, "We will accept this as the very minimum and, between now and Report stage, we will bring in all the other matters I have mentioned and upbraided you for not putting into the Amendment." It was a most deplorable, illogical argument, and I hope my hon. Friends will continue to press the Amendment on the Committee.

Miss Herbison: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I have never heard an argument quite so illogical as that of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is not only the double negative, which was really a positive, which we got from the hon. Lady, but the greater part of her speech with which we disagree. Incidentally, I object strongly to being considered a "female of the species." I would rather he called a woman.
The whole of the hon. Lady's argument must have left an impression on both sides of the Committee that increments for continued employment were completely bad and that we ought not to have had increments in the first place at all. The whole tenor of the hon. Lady's speech was to that effect. Let us examine that proposition very carefully. Those who continue at work—women after 60 and men after 65 years of age—will each have to pay 2s. a week extra contribution. In 52 weeks they will pay £5 4s. a year extra. Take the man who at 65 years of age continues to work until he is 66. During that year he will contribute £5 4s. extra and he will go without a pension which will he £130. That is £135 4s. which is being given to the Insurance Fund.

Mr. Willis: Plus the employer's contribution.

Miss Herbison: Yes, but I am concerned only with what the man is giving and what he is losing. It seems to me that if one takes that into account and examines this purely as an insurance matter, then it is only justice that this benefit of an increment on a pension ought to be raised along with other benefits.
Yet the hon. Lady said that this Amendment was outside the main purpose of the Bill. She told us that it would be inappropriate to increase this increment because this was a Bill to increase benefit rates. What is this increment that the old woman or the old man get when they retire if they have postponed their retirement? They regard this as one of their benefits. If we consider what they are losing in pension and what they are paying in extra contribution, there is no case whatever for the Government refusing this modest Amendment.
I want to take up one further point which the hon. Lady mentioned as a


reason for not accepting this Amendment. I had a Question down to the Minister today about that very point with which the hon. Lady dealt. If what the hon. Lady said is correct, what seems to be in the mind of the Minister is that we shall have shorter steps and smaller increments. I would be opposed to that completely. At present if a man is under 65 years of age he pays his contribution when he is working. If he is off work and on sickness benefit or Industrial Injuries benefit, the contributions are credited to him, but not so for the man between 65 and 70 or the woman between 60 and 65 years of age.
I have taken cases like this to the Minister. I have raised this matter in a previous debate and I have had a Question down on the subject because the Minister promised that he would consider it. If a man, after normal retiring age, is off work on Industrial Injuries benefit or sickness benefit, he discovers when he

retires at 69 or 70 that he has not had any credits. Instead of getting all the increments which he expected to get, he loses the increments. Here is an old man, called upon to pay 2s. extra a week, who will lose £130 a year, and the only hope to be derived from the hon. Lady's speech is her suggestion about shorter steps and smaller increments. The whole thing is completely unjust.

9.15 p.m.

I beg the hon. Lady and the Minister to look at the matter logically. We ask for no more. We do not ask for sympathy. We do not even ask them to be human in this matter. Let them look at it actuarially and logically, and they will see that the only thing they can do is to accept the modest Amendment we propose.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 195, Noes 218.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[9.16 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, G. M.


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Ledger, R. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus


Bacon, Miss Alice
Finch, H. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Foot, D. M.
McGhee, H. G.


Benson, C.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McInnes, J.


Blackburn, F.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Blenkinsop, A.
Gibson, C. W.
McLeavy, Frank


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, Anthony
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Boardman, H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mahon, Simon


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Grey, C. F.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bowles, F. G.
Grimond, J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Boyd, T. C.
Hale, Leslie
Mason, Roy


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.


Brockway, A. F.
Hannan, W.
Mellish, R. J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Messer, Sir F.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hastings, S.
Mikardo, Ian


Burke, W. A.
Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Monslow, W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Moody, A. S.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holman, P.
Moss, R.


Champion, A. J.
Holmes, Horace
Moyle, A.


Clunie, J.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mulley, F. W.


Coldrick, W.
Hoy, J. H.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hubbard, T. F.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Cove, W. G.
Hunter, A. E.
Oliver, G. H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oram, A. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Orbach, M.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Oswald, T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Owen, W. J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Padley, W. E.


Deer, G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Delargy, H. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Diamond, John
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pargiter, G. A.


Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parker, J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Kenyon, C.
Paton, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Peart, T. F.


Edelman, M.
King, Dr. H. M.
Pentland, N.




Plummer, Sir Leslie
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Popplewell, E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Prentice, R. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
White, Hanry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Prootor, W. T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Pryde, D. J.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Randall, H. E.
Stonehouse, John
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Rankin, John
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Redhead, E. C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Reeves, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Reid, William
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, Richard


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Woof, R. E.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Ross, William
Thornton, E.
Zilliacus, K


Royle, C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn



Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shore, E. W.
Weitzman, D.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fisher, Nigel
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Aitken, W. T.
Forrest, G.
Leather, E. H. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fort, R.
Leavey, J. A.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Leburn, W. G.


Armstrong, C. W.
Gammons, Lady
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Ashton, H.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Atkins, H. E.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Glover, D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Barber, Anthony
Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Barlow, Sir John
Goodhart, Philip
McAdden, S. J.


Barter, John
Gough, C. F. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Gower, H. R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maddan, Martin


Bidgood, J. C.
Green, A.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bishop, F. P.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Black, C. W.
Gurden, Harold
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mathew, R.


Braine, B. R.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maude, Angus


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow. W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mawby, R. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harvey, Sir Arthur (Macclesfd)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harvey, John (Walthametow, E.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hay, John
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Burden, F. F. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Campbell, Sir David
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nairn, D. L. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Heave, Airey


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Cole, Norman
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Cooke, Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hornby, R. P.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Cunningham, Knox
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Osborne, C.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Dance, J. C. G.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Partridge, E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, I. J.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Drayson, G. B.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Pott, H. P.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Duncan, Sir James
Joynson-Hicks, Hon, Sir Lancelot
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Duthie, W. S.
Kaberry, D.
Profumo, J. D.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Rawlinson, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Redmayne, M.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kershaw, J. A.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
Kimball, M.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Erroll, F. J.
Kirk, P. M.
Renton, D. L. M.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ridsdale, J. E.







Rippon, A. G. F.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wall, Major Patrick


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Storey, S.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Roper, Sir Harold
Studholme, Sir Henry
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Webbe, Sir H.


Russell, R. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Teeling, W.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Sharples, R. C.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Shepherd, William
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Woollam, John Victor


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)



Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Stevens, Geoffrey
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Finlay.


Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask leave, Sir Charles, to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again"?
I ask permission in order to call attention to the catastrophic fall in the Government's majority. This, we are told, is a very important Bill, and we find that the Government's supporters have vanished, instead of being here to do their duty. In view of that, and the fact that their majority is going down with each vote and will expire before the evening is out, I ask your permission to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again". May we also have from the Minister an explanation of this catastrophic fall in the majority? Is not this an indication that the sooner they go out the better?

The Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot accept such a Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hale: I did say earlier that I wanted to make a few observations at this stage. There are one or two points that need to be put, which have been raised on this matter generally. This Clause is virtually the effective Clause of the Bill, and I suggested when I intervened before that it is based entirely on faked figures—figures faked quite deliberately and quite improperly by the Government. It is supported by an actuarial report in which pressure has been put upon the actuary not to put his own figures—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to intervene.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I only intervene to say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman, if he is to make allegations of that kind, will substantiate them.

Mr. Hale: I am very glad to say that the right hon. Gentleman's hopes will be

gratified, if not those of the old-age pensioners. I propose to give chapter and verse in this matter, and the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman has not been one to command much respect. What this Government did first of all was to nobble the National Assistance Board. They sacked Georgie Buchanan and replaced him by a Conservative Member of Parliament in the hope that they would get a Conservative policy. Since then, we have found gradual reductions of the maximum rates for public assistance in relation to, and by comparison with, the rates of old-age pensions, the most serious thing of all.
I spent part of my time in the last election going round the country, and I found that people said to me "You said that you would give us more, but every time I get virtually less." Most of them did, and this same swindle has been perpetrated again. They have increased National Assistance for a married couple by 9s. a week, and they have increased the grant for a married couple on the National Insurance by 15s., with the result that the lowest-paid recipients will benefit by 6s. less—the poorest people—than those who have other income.
Not only that, but they have taken off the tobacco coupons, something like 4s. 8d. a week, with the result that the poor people in Oldham and throughout the country generally are getting an increase of about 4s. 4d., which is hardly enough with which to buy a copy of the Annual Report of the Ministry complete with photographs of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
9.30 p.m.
I had the privilege or the misfortune or the good fortune to listen to the right hon. Gentleman speaking on this issue at Brighton. I would say to him, almost in a tone of apology now, that when I made


some observations that night on his speech and said that it was the speech to end all speeches and most listeners, I had not then heard the Prime Minister. Suffice it to say that if I had heard the Prime Minister first I should have awarded him the palm for bathos.
Sustained by members of the Primrose League, fortified by the local periwinkles who cheered him to the echo, the right hon. Gentleman appeared in the guise of a fairy queen about to bestow benefits, spring in his heels, and summer in his heart. Now the winds of autumn are blowing, searing through the poorest streets of Oldham, and winter and Christmas are coming. We have talked again this time of the possibility of some benefits for Christmas. We are not going to have benefits for Christmas but are going to postpone the increase for a happy new year.
The right hon. Gentleman appears in this matter as a rather faded Scrooge. "Out upon you, and your merry Christmas is all humbug."

Mr. Dudley Williams: And so are you.

Mr. Hale: I can assure the hon. Member that nothing will gratify the Committee more than to hear a word from him. If he succeeds in catching the eye of the distinguished Chairman of the Committee we shall be happy to listen to him say—

Miss Herbison: But the hon. Member has not been here all day.

The Chairman: Order. I do not know that I shall be at all happy. I wish hon. Gentlemen would not call one another names across the Floor of the Chamber.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I do not think I said anything at all, Sir Charles, to which exception can be taken. The hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend as a humbug, and I simply said, "So are you."

The Chairman: It is even worse to make such remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Hale: I was only quoting a well-known piece of English literature, presented in an adaptation of Charles Dickens by Stanley someone or another on the records some years ago when Christmas was rather a festivity. The

right hon. Gentleman might adopt the adaptation and say, "Two years ago this Christmas I succeeded to the place of Osbert Peake, and, I was left his sole and residuary legatee and sole executor on the day he became Lord what's-his-name upon his removal to another place." The day he goes to another place shall we say, "This was the finest thing done by John Boyd-Scrooge in all his life"? Ah, well, it is very sad for the retirement pensioner.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to substantiate some of the statements I am making. In order to substantiate the obvious swindle which is being perpetrated, to justify taking some of the extra value of the pensions from the contributors, in order to try to substantiate taking the 5d. or 6d. extra they are taking away from every worker starting next January, as a very reasonable basis they have to produce figures to show that the Fund will not always remain solvent.
There are £1,500 million in the kitty so why increase the contributions? They say "We shall have extra demands to meet." They say, "We estimate that although unemployment at the moment is running at 1½per cent., by 1959 it will be running at 3 per cent." On what is that estimate based? On this Government remaining in office? Is this really the opinion of Her Majesty's advisers at this moment?
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) in a very effective speech reminded us of the Government's boast of doubling the standard of living in twenty-five years. Are they going to double the standard of living by doubling unemployment?
The Report goes further. The Report says that in 1960 to 1961 unemployment is estimated at over 1 million. We are now at the end of 1957. This Government comes with a Report which they have instructed the Actuary to make, which the Actuary did not want to make. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny that. I say he did that on instructions from the Government, who said, "You must take our estimate of unemployment and say that this Fund will become insolvent." Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Sir Ian Fraser: Will the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) allow me?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) decides to adopt an interrogatory method of speech, I shall reply in due course, but I do not propose to allow him to assume that because I do not intervene at every point in his speech I accept every single word that he says. It seems more than improbable that I should have cause to do so.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that rather miserable denial, that rather half-hearted contradiction, that suggestion that I may be wrong. Therefore, I now give my authority for that statement. The Government Actuary, in his report for 1954, quotes his quinquennial review, on which he gives his own opinion, and then says:
The new bases have been adopted for the purpose of the present report, including the assumption, on Government instructions, of a long-term unemployment rate of 4 per cent.
The Actuary does not put in the words "on Government instructions" unless he wants to say, "This is not my view. I was made to adopt it," because he could see nothing in his knowledge of the existing situation, excepting the in competency of Her Majesty's advisers, which justified that view at all.
Does the Minister now want to deny it? Does he now say that that document is not true? Does he say that Her Majesty's advisers really expect a million unemployed in 1961? Does he say that they are planning for a million unemployed in that year and that the war on the trade unions that they talk about is intended to produce an industrial situation which will result in increased unemployment? The right hon. Gentleman has to face at least one dilemma. Either he instructed, or the Government instructed, the Government Actuary to make an assumption in which the Government do not believe or to make an assumption in which they do believe. The House is entitled to know as a matter of first importance—

Sir I. Fraser: Will the hon. Member allow me to put a question? Will he remember that in 1946 the then Government

instructed the Actuary that an 8 per cent. unemployment figure was probable?

Mr. Hale: The hon. Member is wrong as usual. He is completely wrong. The Beveridge Report, prepared under the auspices of a Coalition Government, and which had never seen a Labour Government in office, assumed a high rate of unemployment because all the cognoscenti at that time assumed that a Tory Government would be re-elected. That was not done in 1946 but in 1944, and the basis of the Beveridge scheme was that we should continue to have unemployment after the war because we had always had it and no political party in office had hitherto shown that it could deal with it. We on this side of the Committee came along and we abolished unemployment.

Captain Richard Pilkington: Abolished what?

Mr. Hale: The hon. and gallant Member should not sit there yap-yapping like a constipated Pekinese.

Captain Pilkington: The hon. Member said that the Labour Government abolished unemployment. What unemployment was there to abolish in 1945?

Mr. Hale: I will tell the hon. and gallant Member. There were 4 million or 5 million soldiers in all parts of the world. There were men coming from the prison camps of Burma. The folly and stupidity of Her Majesty's then advisers had failed to get any continuation of American aid, and we were left with the problem of transporting these men back at our cost, of providing the planes, of re-orientating the whole ambit of trade and beating our swords into ploughshares—and I wish to heaven we had stuck to that—and creating full employment for the first time in peace time. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member of the figures. By July, 1951, we had brought the figure down to 1 per cent. unemployment over-all, the lowest figure in history.

Mr. Hubbard: That figure included unemployable people.

Mr. Hale: Yes, that included the hard core of unemployable people. We had virtually got down to the bedrock of human possibility and had performed a job that no other nation on the face of


the earth has ever done. If anyone wants to see Toryism working, let him look at Italy or go to Northern Ireland, which is near enough. Within a few months of this Government coming into office, unemployment had gone up in Oldham. It went up to 2 per cent., and now it is hovering around 1½per cent.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: It is 4 per cent. in my constituency.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman's constituency will be interested in the argument I am putting, because the right hon. Gentleman says that it will be 4 per cent. all over the country by 1961— 1 million unemployed. That is Tory freedom working. Freedom for everyone, except the Government Actuary.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister is unusually coy. He is not making observations with his usual facility. There was a time in the history of this House when we could not keep him down. Now it is extremely difficult to get him to his feet. I have made the points I wish to make, and when the right hon. Gentleman has thought over the reply to them I will consider whether it is worth while using the time of the Committee to make any observations on the reply he has made.

Mr. Marquand: Mr. Marquand rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would give way to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), but as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), after that extraordinary outburst, seems to think that a reply is called for, I am only too happy to oblige him. I must say at once, however, that his suggestion that a very high public official had been subjected to pressure, and had yielded to it, was not substantiated by a single thing he said. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will have the decency to withdraw what he said.

Mr. Hale: On the instructions of the Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not the custom in the House of Commons to mention by name or office public officials, except in extreme cases, and it is certainly unusual to make an allegation such as the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to make against a very high and very intelligent

public official, who does his duty by this House and by all Governments with absolute integrity. The subsequent speech of the hon. Gentleman did not contain one item of support for his allegation. I can demonstrate that in a sentence.
It is not the function of the Government Actuary himself to forecast the trends of unemployment or employment. He is not an economist and he takes advice on this, and always has done, under all Governments, as right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite bench know perfectly well.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Mr. J. Griffiths indicated assent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) is nodding to that. The Government Actuary takes advice from the Government as to the assumptions he is to make. To suggest that because he makes the calculations on certain assumptions he has been either subjected to undue pressure or has done something that he should not, simply will not bear one moment's examination, and the hon. Member for Oldham knows that very well.
Let me make it quite clear that the form of words used, to which he has objected, has been used before. It is the regular form of words. The hon. Member for Oldham said, "We abolished unemployment in 1951". It is odd, therefore, that the Report of the Government Actuary on the 1951 Bill contains these words:
On the Government's instructions a long-term average of 4 per cent. unemployment has been adopted in the present estimates.
Therefore, not only the figure but the form of words which the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest was improper were adopted under his own Government.
9.45 p.m.
A further answer is hardly called for on the merits of the matter, save by way of reassurance to any hon. Member who may have been disturbed by the outburst of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. It has been the custom since 1951 to assume the current level of unemployment for the next couple of years and then to put it at a 4 per cent. figure for the years after the year immediately following those two years. That was done in 1951, and it has been done again this


time. These are the words of the Government Actuary's Report on the 1951 Bill:
This figure is deliberately put on the high side to provide that margin of safety which is necessary in an insurance scheme.

Mr. Hale: The Minister has not said whether he believes these figures are true or whether they are false, and he has not said whether the Fund stands at £800 million or £900 million more than it did in 1951.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, he should have studied the Actuarial Report on this fund and he would know that at £1,500 million it is not even one-tenth of what it would be if the scheme were funded. Therefore, any suggestion that there is a vast fund available for the distribution of benefits is one to which no hon. Member who has studied the matter would give credence.

Mr. Marquand: I had thought that it might be more appropriate to pursue the examination of the size of the Insurance Fund, the relation between the Fund and the benefits, and the increases now proposed when we come to the Schedule, but since my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has opened up the discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and since the Minister has referred to the question of the size of the Fund, perhaps it would be appropriate if we embark on this discussion now and we can then finish it tomorrow. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure he knows, that I have no intention of prolonging the discussion, but since we are on this topic I thought that we might carry on, which will no doubt shorten our discussion when we come to the Schedules.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman desired to carry on the main discussion on the Schedules. The rate of contribution, of course, is an important matter. I am at the Committee's disposal, and I imagine that it would wish not to have to deal with it twice.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Discuss it on the Schedules.

Mr. Marquand: My right hon. Friend says that we should discuss it on the

Schedules. I do not mind, but before we depart from this Clause I should like to ask one question which I am sure could not be raised in any way on any of the Schedules. We should like to have a little more elaboration than the Parliamentary Secretary was able to give us the other night about the position of part-time workers. She had only a short time in which to wind up the debate, and referring to the question which has been raised widely in many parts of the country about part-time workers, she said:
The National Insurance Advisory Committee recently recommended that part-time workers who worked for eight hours in any occupation should not pay the stamp, and the regulations are going through."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 1087.]
The anxiety of employers who employ part-time workers is that, under the provisions of the Bill, they will have to pay a substantially increased contribution each week for each part-time worker they employ, and in a case where they are employing part-time workers half-time, this might involve a substantial increase in the total contributions they have to pay. The hon. Lady referred only to part-time workers not having to pay for stamps. Will the employers have to pay for this increased contribution? If so, will it not be a strong incentive to employers, if there is an increase of 2s. for the stamp, to reduce the numbers of part-time workers they employ and, thereby, reduce the level of employment and reduce the opportunities for married women and others who have special obligations elsewhere, to do some good for the country's benefit while yet having to attend to their households? I would like an answer to that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very glad to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I agree with him that this point is particularly relevant to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", as opposed to the wider issues which we now feel could best be discussed when we debate the Schedules.
The position is this. At the present, as a result of rules made under the classification regulations, a person who works for any one employer for less than four hours a week, or for eight hours if it is domestic work, is removed from Class I and no Class I National Insurance contrition is payable either by the employer or employee, Of course, Industrial Injury


contributions are payable. The worker drops into Class II, but if his total weekly remuneration is less than 20s. Class III, not Class II, contributions become payable.
Regulations are at present before the National Insurance Advisory Committee to raise the "less than four hours" rule to a not more than eight hours rule, and also to raise the figure of total weekly remuneration which I have mentioned from 20s. to 40s. I cannot, of course, anticipate what the Committee will report, but the matter is before it and I hope to have its report very shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(REPEAL OF TOBACCO RELIEF FOR PENSIONERS AND EQUIVALENT INCREASE IN PENSIONS UNDER OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT, 1936.)

Mr. B. Taylor: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, to leave out subsection (1).
I call this a "T.T." Amendment. It has nothing to do with agriculture or motor racing. It is far more important than that, because it deals with a very important section of the community, the old folk. It has been said on a number of occasions during the past week that a large proportion of the old folk have for ten years enjoyed an amenity in the form of tobacco tokens. The subject was very fully ventilated on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I have no doubt that many comments will be made at this stage about the miserly action which the Government propose to take.
Last Wednesday the Minister gave his reason why it had been decided to withdraw tobacco tokens from the old folk. He said:
… the time has come to end it…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 982.]
We have read in the newspapers of notes like that being written on very sad occasions by people who have decided to "end it". It may be that by doing this the Minister is committing political suicide. In all fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that he commended the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) when he introduced this concession for the old people. My right hon. Friend is present, and if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir

Charles, he may have something to say about why it was done.
Has the Minister decided that the concession must come to an end for one of the following reasons or a combination of them? Has he decided to end it because of administrative difficulties, or, as he said last Wednesday, to do justice between one pensioner and another, or as an economy measure to save the Exchequer £16 million? I suspect the latter is the main reason why he has taken this course. It is passing strange that at the time when the Government are talking about inflationary pressure the Minister announces the decision to end this concession to the old people.
When the increases were announced it was placarded in the boldest possible headlines that the pensioners were to have a 10s. a week increase in the basic pension, but that is only half the truth. It applies only to a minority of the old-age pensioners. During the Second Reading debate on Wednesday the Parliamentary Secretary said that 54 per cent. of the pensioners receive tobacco tokens. I do not dispute her figures, although I thought the number was greater. More than half the pensioners receiving the basic retirement pension will not get 10s. extra. Even those not receiving National Assistance will get 7s. 8d. and those receiving National Assistance—as we shall show when we discuss the Regulations—will get much less than 7s. 8d.
The pensioners are very disappointed, frustrated and resentful, and the same feeling exists among other sections of the community. I agree with those pensioners who believe that the proposed increase of 10s. is inadequate, but to take away 2s. 4d. is described in my home area as "put and take"—to put with one hand and take with the other. That represents the action of the Minister. To continue to say that it is a 10s. rise for all the pensioners is not only untrue but bad. It is not according to the best standards of honesty, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a mean and shabby trick to perpetrate on the old-age pensioners.

Mr. J. Paton: We are discussing a mean-spirited Bill, and this proposal to abolish the tobacco tokens is the meanest part. We have been told that the reason is that the provision of tobacco tokens


is illogical and anomalous as between one pensioner and another. But the whole of our financial legislation is studded with anomalies and illogicalities. Therefore, in that respect the provision of tobacco tokens is no better or worse than thousands of other provisions which are still retained.
I am quite sure the Minister does not wish to go down in Parliamentary annals as the right hon. Scrooge, but as has been said already, some of the provisions in this Bill are characteristic of the Scrooge manner. The Minister has been described as a kindly man. I hope that tomorrow, after hearing the discussion on this Clause he will have been moved sufficiently to give some expression of his kindness—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION, &C., BILLS

Lords Message [14th November] relating to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills (including Bills for Consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Barber.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Select Committee of six Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills (including Bills for

Consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session, together with the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the Act:

Mr. Philip Bell, Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Forman, Mr. Janner, Sir Hugh Linstead and Mr. Oliver:

Power to send for persons, papers and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Barber.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Pontypridd [copy laid before the House, 14th November] approved.—[Mr. Simon.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Thame [copy laid before the House, 14th November] approved.—[Mr. Simon.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Blyth [copy laid before the House, 14th November] approved.—[Mr. Simon.]

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (SEXUAL OFFENCES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Barber.]

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I am most grateful for the opportunity which this Adjournment debate affords me of drawing attention to a situation which is of considerable and grave concern to a large number of people—I am referring to sexual murders of young children. In doing so, I wish to be brief and to the point and to give time, if possible, to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), in whose constituency Mr. Taylor lives, to speak, and, of course, to our very capable Joint Under-Secretary of State to give a very full and, I sincerely hope, helpful reply.
I would also wish to say that the great Borough of Croydon which I have the honour, together with my two colleagues, to represent is particularly sensitive to all tragic crimes of murder, as, regrettably, it has some rather unhappy memories—memories which it wants, as in this very sad case, the Home Office to erase by promoting sound, wise and, above all, protective administrative action.
Mr. Speaker, as you yourself know, but I doubt whether my constituents will realise—and certainly I do not suppose that the public as a whole will, unfortunately, appreciate—an Adjournment debate forbids reference to grievances the remedies for which require legislation—nor would I attempt to do this tonight. The immediate remedy which I am seeking is well within the competence of the Home Office to meet and to satisfy. It is also possible within existing legislation. I also realise that I must not criticise the actions of the courts in an Adjournment debate such as this.
I should briefly like to refer to the facts. On 31st August last a little girl of four years of age—Edwina Marguerite Taylor—was murdered in my constituency by Derek Edwardson, a man of thirty-one, who also lived in my constituency, in St. Aubyn's Road, Upper Norwood. Edwardson subsequently pleaded guilty to the murder. The murder of this child, who could not

defend herself, was particularly horrible, the cause of death being a fractured skull and strangulation. Edwardson himself admitted that he had enticed the girl to his fiat and strangled her there.
This murder has not only caused great sorrow to the child's parents and to all connected with her, but it has outraged the feelings of all decent people in the country and, particularly, of my constituents. A Streatham housewife, herself the mother of two children, has launched a petition calling on the Government to establish an institution where sexual offenders against young children can be detained and treated. The response to her petition has been overwhelming and has by no means been confined to the locality. It is estimated that in the first week some 4,000 signatures were obtained, although the petition was not what one would call a properly organised effort. Another petition has been organised by Mr. Taylor, the father of the little girl to whom I have referred. That, too, I understand, has been daily gaining strength. I have had many personal approaches and much individual correspondence, all on the same lines.
The Home Office could immediately, without further delay, establish an institution where sexual offenders could be detained and treated by medical experts. In fact, the anger of the people calls for such administrative action. The people of this country are absolutely shocked at these appalling offences and at a state of affairs under which the Home Office permits such criminals to be released before they are certified by medical experts as cured. As we are only too well aware, such people are released, and are then liable to cause new sufferings similar to those which they previously caused.
I would ask the Home Office what medical treatment on these lines they intend to give to Edwardson during his term of imprisonment to stop him from being a menace and a danger again, should he come out? Edwardson, who had eight previous convictions, had admitted writing a letter threatening to murder his wife, and also to publishing obscene libels. Some months before the murder, he told the police that he had sexual urges but had never carried out his murderous threats. However, Dr. Matheson, the principal medical officer of Brixton Prison, said at the time—I again emphasise that this was several


months before the murder took place—that there was always a chance that a person of this mentality would implement his threat. Therefore he should have been detained and treated in the kind of institution which I am advocating the Home Office should provide.
In 1949, Edwardson was bound over for housebreaking. In 1950 he was sent to prison for three months for indecent assault on a little girl aged only five. Later, in 1950, he was put on probation for breach of an earlier probation order, and in 1951 he was fined £5 for indecent exposure. In 1952, he was again put on probation for two years for a similar offence. In 1954 he was sent to prison for three months as being a suspected person and in 1955 he went to prison for six months for stealing.
What a disturbing, absurd and unrealistic condition exists whereby a man with such a record of sexual offences and threats should be able to be free instead of being detained and treated in an institution specially available for all such unfortunate, but nevertheless, very dangerous people. It appears to my constituents and to myself that such conditions are weighted in favour of this kind of crime and against a possible victim. It is obvious to everyone that such a man, guilty of such offences, was at least unbalanced. Furthermore, he was dangerous and surely the public have a right to be protected and have their children protected against him by ensuring that such potential criminals are detained and treated in the kind of institution that I am requesting on their behalf.
No one would deny that such a man needed medical treatment. Surely the public have the right to insist that such treatment should be undergone in a place and under such conditions as would render such a man harmless. A few days ago the Home Office published statistics showing that, regrettably, murders generally had been on the increase in the last three years. I understand also that this type of crime, which I am highlighting tonight, has also tended to increase. I claim that new, modern and realistic Home Office and police action is necessary forthwith to face this situation. Therefore, through the Joint Under-Secretary, I beg the Home Secretary and the Home Office to give great

thought to the anger which has been aroused in the people and to realise that some such institution and new administrative reorganisation are urgently necessary to remedy this appalling state of affairs.
There is much more I should like to have said, but I am afraid that the narrow boundaries of an Adjournment debate forbid it. I can only hope and trust that the strong feelings of my constituents, myself—and, I feel sure, the public generally—which I have tried to stress tonight will result in Home Office and police action to give a measure of protection to our children from the sexual criminal. If this be achieved, much will have been gained by this debate tonight.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) has done a great service by drawing attention to this terrible tragedy. I believe we are on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, the British public is jealous of its liberties. It does not like to see people detained for long periods in prison without good cause. It does not like to see people detained for long periods in mental hospitals without good cause. On the other hand, many people, in particular many parents, are perturbed by the thought that every day, or almost every day, people who have assaulted young children—who habitually assault young children—come out of prison uncured, unrepentant and, in some cases, even untreated.
Since this terrible tragedy, many suggestions have been put forward to the Home Office. Some have been made by my hon. Friend and others by myself. The Joint Under-Secretary has had his attention drawn to the Swedish system of indefinite sentences. He has also had his attention drawn to a most moderate suggestion put forward by Mr. Taylor, the father of this unfortunate young girl, a suggestion in which Mr. Taylor proposed the setting-up of a register for certain people who commit sexual assaults. All I ask at the moment is that my hon. and learned Friend should set up an inquiry into the suggestions he has received, that he should consult his experts and ask them whether there is anything that can be done to help to solve this great problem.
What really bothers my constituents and, indeed, all constituents is the fact that Mr. Edwardson, and Mr. Edwards who committed a murder at much the same time in very similar circumstances, had very recently been in the hands of the police. It was known to the authorities that Edwardson had committed assaults of this sort and it was likely—one might almost say probable—that he would commit further assaults. Yet society could do nothing to protect itself until a murder had been committed. Must we always wait until it is too late?

10.16 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): This debate has been introduced and supported in most moving terms, and I should at once like to express my very deep sympathy with Mr. and Mrs. Taylor in their tragic loss. The murder of a child, and particularly the murder of a child in circumstances associated with sexual perversion, fills us all with horror and revulsion, and I can well understand the feelings of those who demand that some drastic action should be taken.
Nevertheless, we here in this House have a solemn responsibility for national policy, and horror and revulsion are not good counsellors. I hope I shall not be thought insensitive to the indignation and fears of parents if I try to bring this problem into perspective.
It has been stated in some quarters—in fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) himself said it this evening—that there has been a great increase in child murder since the Homicide Act became law or within the last few years. This simply is not true and it does no service to parents to alarm them by exaggerated stories.
I wonder if I may give the facts. Between the time when the Homicide Act received the Royal Assent on 21st March this year and 30th September, 32 children between 1 and 14 years of age were murdered. The number during the corresponding period in 1955, which was, in fact, a year when the total number of murders was low, was 34. In both periods, the large majority of the victims were murdered by their parents, and in most cases the parents either committed suicide or were found to be insane.
In the first period—that is the 1955 period—there were three murders of children which appeared to have a sexual motive—only three. In the 1957 period there were four, and in addition in that period—the six months in 1957—there was one case in which two children were killed with motives which were not clearly established. What we have is, in 1955 three sexual murders of children in a period of about six months, and four or possibly six this year.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these were other than abominable crimes, but do not let us terrify parents into the belief that child murderers are stalking the streets of every town. That simply is not true. I think that a tragic measure of the scale of the problem which has been raised tonight is provided by comparing those figures which I have given with the number of our children who, to our shame, are killed on the roads. There were over 700 last year, compared with the three or six to which I have just referred.
Much of the emphasis in this evening's debate and the discussion in the Press has, very properly, been on the importance of preventing offences against children. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) referred to the proposals put forward by Mr. Taylor, the father of the murdered child, proposals which, I need hardly say, we have considered very carefully. The persistent sexual offender is not readily deterred by fear of detection and punishment, and that is precisely because he acts on impulse without considering the consequences.
Mr. Taylor's proposal, that there should be a periodical report to the police by anybody convicted of a sexual offence, as I understand it, is made with the intention of impressing on the offender the fact that he is known and that, if he commits an offence, he is likely to be found out. But the efficacy of this as a measure of prevention depends precisely upon the point at which he is weakest, namely, on his ability to refrain from criminal conduct because he knows of the possible consequences.
I would remind the House that fear of detection may operate in two ways. It may restrain a man from offending, but it may also cause a man, after he has


committed an impulsive assault of a sexual nature, to panic and kill his victim in the hope of avoiding detection. I know that my hon. Friends would agree that there is some reason to think that that was so in the case they raised this evening. We should not forget, in considering this suggestion, that Edwardson himself was on probation at the time of this terrible crime and reporting regularly to a probation officer.
One must face the fact that the only way of making absolutely certain that sexual offenders do not repeat their offences and, in particular, do not commit murder, is either to detain them or to put them under a supervision so close that they are never out in public alone. The House should consider what would be involved in such a course. Some 5,000 people are convicted of sexual offences annually. Hon. Members will know of the valuable study of sexual offences undertaken by the Cambridge Department of Criminal Science, which tended to show that over four-fifths of the total number of persons convicted of sexual offences were so convicted for the first time, and that of those first offenders only one in ten was subsequently reconvicted.
It would clearly not be right to put under prolonged supervision, still less detention, the many persons who will not be convicted again. But, of course, no one knows who is going to be convicted again and who is not. Under one-fifth of offenders were found to be recidivists, that is, in the sense that they had one or more previous convictions for sexual offences. The longest records were most characteristically of those found guilty of indecent exposure and homosexual offences, but no tendency was observed for offenders to progress from less serious to more serious offences.
The figures I have quoted suggest that persistent offenders form a very small proportion of those convicted of sexual offences and that, if one were to apply special measures, they could be justified only in relation to that very small group.

Further, a great many sexual assaults are of quite a minor character. If the House reflects on that, I would ask it in all seriousness to consider whether we should be justified in putting people repeatedly guilty of, say, indecent exposure

or of minor assaults, but not certifiably insane or mentally defective, under detention or supervision on the offchance that they might one day commit a murder. My hon. Friend really came to that point when he mentioned the potential criminal. It would be absolutely alien to all that we believe constitutionally or in the way of our social life that we should lock up anybody because he might be a criminal. That is how the argument tended. It would be a serious invasion of the liberty of the subject. It would require the strongest justification and, indeed, would involve new legislation, which we cannot discuss, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, on this Adjournment.
I would, however, remind my hon. Friends and other hon. Members that the courts have the power to sentence the more serious sexual offenders to preventive detention if they have the necessary qualifying sentences. Many sexual recidivists also have a record of nonsexual crime which may in itself qualify them for preventive detention. Obviously, before arriving at that sort of stage, one would hope that remedial measures had been employed. My hon. Friends very rightly drew attention to the need of remedial treatment. I am sure they have in mind that at Wormwood Scrubs, at Wakefield and also at Holloway, there are psychiatric units which have had, it is fair to say, a singularly high degree of success. They will be aware that the Prison Commissioners are this year starting building the psychiatric prison at Grendon Underwood, for which we have been looking for so long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham raised the question of indefinite sentences. I had already covered that when I spoke of keeping a man in detention on the ground that he may become a criminal, as a potential criminal. Certainly, any such innovation in our system of criminal jurisprudence would require the most careful examination and would certainly require legislation, which we cannot discuss this evening.
I would say that the proposals put forward, including Mr. Taylor's proposal, deserve the most sympathetic consideration, both because of their source and because they are put forward as a constructive solution. Having said that, however, I am not convinced that they would help us with the difficult problem


of protecting the public, and particularly children, from sexual offences. I do, however, assure my hon. Friends that we shall continue to study this problem and discuss it with those who are best able to throw light upon it.
There is one final word which I should like to say, because it was really raised by my hon. Friend when he dealt with the possibility that anyone in the position of Edwardson might come out of prison and commit fresh offences. I should like to offer a word of reassurance to those who believe that sexual murderers who are now sentenced to life imprisonment will serve a relatively short term and then be let loose to repeat those offences.
It is true that hitherto the normal run of reprieved murderers have been released after something like nine years—that was the average figure given during the debates on the Homicide Bill. It should, however, be remembered that these have been cases in which mitigating factors already existed to justify the reprieve. Even so, there have been exceptional cases in which it has been thought necessary to detain a man until he has reached

an age at which he is no longer a danger to the public.
We now have a new problem with those murderers who are not capital murderers and, indeed, with those who are guilty of manslaughter because the jury has found a diminished responsibility. We do not know how long it may be necessary to detain some of those in these classes who are now being sentenced to life imprisonment, but it was stated in our debates on capital punishment that some of them may have to be detained for a very long time indeed.
I hope that hon. Members will assure those of their constituents who are worried about this that before any murderer is released, the most careful consideration is given to the question of whether there is a risk of his repeating his offence and that no murderer is discharged merely because a given time has elapsed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.